You are on page 1of 8

【国外研修報告】

Static Characteristics and Aerodynamic Stability of Proposed Hybrid Stress-ribbon 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 stress-ribbon bridges for pedestrian use, the ‘stress-ribbon suspension’ and the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridges, were preliminary-designed. The girder of these bridges is composed of edge beams of steel or pre-stressed 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 one-fourteenth of a conventional concrete stress-ribbon 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;

stress-ribbon bridge;

suspension bridge;

cable-stayed bridge; static characteristics; aerodynamic stability; critical flutter speed.

1. Introduction The authors have investigated the aerodynamic properties of two kinds of hybrid stress-ribbon pedestrian bridge with a very light steel girder or a light steel-concrete girder. The preliminary design, including the static and aerodynamic characteristics,

Then, the ‘stress-ribbon 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 ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge’ shown in Fig. 2 was proposed [5].

and the prospects of applying hybrid structures to

2.

Proposal for hybrid stress-ribbon 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 stress-ribbon bridge could increase the aerodynamic stability: the heavy triangular fairing of concrete for the Jinya (Jinya-no-mori) Bridge was replaced with a much lighter half-circular fairing of steel [1]. Secondly, a much lighter full-steel stress-ribbon, 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 one-eighth of the

In the ‘stress-ribbon 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 stress-ribbon girder presented in section 1 is applied except for the portion close to the abutments where the pre-stressed concrete girder is used. As described in the succeeding section, the structure without the concrete girder i.e. the one with the full-steel girder was found to be the most aerodynamically stable. Therefore, either the full steel girder of Fig. 2(c) or the hybrid girder with pre-stressed concrete edge beams, Fig. 2(d), is applied to the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge. In this alternative structure, the vertical hangers close to the abutments are replaced by stay-cables 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

Open Grating Hard Rubber Plate Upper cable 1.9 B =1.5 E 0.5 0.2 123 Concrete
Open Grating
Hard Rubber Plate
Upper cable
1.9
B
=1.5
E
0.5
0.2
123
Concrete Stress-Ribbon
Cross Beam
Concrete Stress-Ribbon
Light Steel Stress-Ribbon Suspension
Suspension
Suspension
Steel Pipe
Lower cable
4.5
24.6
73.8
24.6
(b)
Precast
Hanger
A
Concrete Deck
C
B
0.2
4.10 (f/L=0.033)
8.61 (f/L=0.07)
(Unit in m)
B=2.4
(a)
(c)

Fig. 1 Earlier proposed stress-ribbon suspension bridge. pre-stressed concrete girder, (c).

Elevation, (a); cross-sections of full-steel girder, (b); and

Steel or PreStressed Concrete Edge Beam 123 2.0 Concrete Tower 25.5 72 25.5 B =1.8
Steel or PreStressed Concrete Edge Beam
123
2.0
Concrete Tower
25.5
72
25.5
B
=1.8
E
StayCable
12.3
(f/L=0.1)
2.46
(f/L=0.02)
Upper Cable
Hanger
0.16
0.16
Lower Cable
B =2.4
(a)
(c)
Steel or PreStressed Concrete Edge Beam
123
2.0
Concrete Tower
25.5
72
25.5
B
=1.8
E
12.3
(f/L=0.1)
2.46
(f/L=0.02)
Upper Cable
Hanger
Lower Cable
(Unit in m)
0.21
(b)
(d)
9.85
9.85

Fig. 2 Elevation of stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge (a); corresponding stress-ribbon suspension bridge, (b); full-steel girder, (c); and hybrid girder in material with pre-stressed 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 stress-ribbon bridge and the stress-ribbon suspension bridge are listed in the table. The stress-ribbon 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 stress-ribbon’ 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 cross-sectional area of the upper, lower and stay cables, A U , A L and A S , on the maximum deflection of the girder, y max , were examined at the early preliminary design stage of the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge. Fig. 3(a) and 3(b) show the results of y max 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 non-dimensional cross-sectional area of the cables,

A U /A OU , A L /A OL and A S /A OS , where A OJ (J=U, L, S) is the optimum value applied to the proposal for each cable. As expected y max 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 max 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 stay-cables 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.

60 60 w w Upper Cable Upper Cable p p Lower Cable Lower Cable Steel
60
60
w
w
Upper Cable
Upper Cable
p
p
Lower Cable
Lower Cable
Steel Edge Beam
Stay Cable
Steel Edge Beam
Stay Cable
40
40
20
20
0
0
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
A
/ A
(a)
/ A
A /A
A
/ A
A /A
(b)
/ A
U
OU
A L
OS
S
OL
U
OU
A L
OS
S
OL
y
max (cm)
y
max (cm)

Fig. 3 Maximum deflection for stress-ribbon cable-stayed 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 w Upper Cable p Lower Cable Concrete Edge Beam Stay Cable 40 20 0
60
w
Upper Cable
p
Lower Cable
Concrete Edge Beam
Stay Cable
40
20
0
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
/ A
A /A
(a)
A
/ A
U
OU
A L
S
OL
OS
y
max (cm)
y
max (cm)

60

40

20

0

w Upper Cable p Lower Cable Concrete Edge Beam Stay Cable 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4
w
Upper Cable
p
Lower Cable
Concrete Edge Beam
Stay Cable
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
A
/ A
/ A
A
/A
U
OU
A L
S
OL
OS

(b)

Fig. 4 Maximum deflection for stress-ribbon cable-stayed 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

mid-span so as to decrease Y max under asymmetrical live

3.1.

‘Cable-stayed 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 pre-stressed concrete edge beams are connected to the abutments rigidly so as to play the same role in suspending live load as pure stress-ribbon bridges.

stress-ribbon bridges with steel edge beams Fig. 5 shows the deflection of the ‘full-steel stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge together with the ‘full-steel stress-ribbon 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 ‘stress-ribbon suspension’ bridge, Fig. 2(b), which has the same dimensions and physical properties as the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge, was also examined in this study. It was found in the analysis that Hw for the ‘cable-stayed suspension’ structure with steel and concrete edge beams can be reduced to about one-eleventh and one-seventh of the Jinya Bridge (see Table 1) and that Hw for the ‘suspension’ structure with steel and concrete edge beams to about one-fourteenth and one-eighth of the Jinya, respectively.

stay-cables, or, the ‘cable-stayed girder’ hardly deflect and therefore, that the ends of the ‘suspension girder’ seem to be fixed to the ‘cable-stayed 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 ‘cable-stayed 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 cable-stayed suspension structure and those for

Table 1 Dimensions and main physical properties for four types of bridge.

 

Concrete

Steel Stress-

Stress-Ribbon Suspension Proposed Earlier

Stress-Ribbon Cable-Stayed Suspension & ( Stress-Ribbon Suspension )

Structural Type

Stress-Ribbon

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)

1025 (Upper)
 

360

(Upper)

(Upper)
 

414 (Upper)

414 (Upper) 1475

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

 
Y =16.5 cm max Y max =15.9 cm Y =16.7 cm max Y =19.9 cm
Y =16.5 cm
max
Y max =15.9
cm
Y =16.7 cm
max
Y =19.9 cm
max

Fig. 5 Comparison between deflection for full-steel ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge and for full-steel ‘stress-ribbon 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 mid-span keeping the cable-to-girder 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 max 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 max for the ‘cable-stayed 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 ‘cable-stayed 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 mid-span. 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 max and M max for the ‘cable-stayed 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 max and M max and that the clamp with d = 40 cm is not necessarily effective for a decrease in M max .

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-

Stayed Suspension Stayed w w 20 p p Steel Edge Beam 10 0 -10 (m)
Stayed
Suspension
Stayed
w
w
20
p
p
Steel Edge Beam
10
0
-10
(m)
0
25
49
74
98
123
M (kN
m)・

(a)

Cable-

Cable-

Stayed Suspension Stayed w w p p -160 Steel Edge Beam -60 40 (m) 0
Stayed
Suspension
Stayed
w
w
p
p
-160
Steel Edge Beam
-60
40
(m)
0
25
49
74
98
123
N (kN)

(b)

Fig. 6 Bending moment diagram, (a), and normal force diagram, (b), for stress-ribbon ‘cable-stayed suspension’ bridge with steel edge beams under full and asymmetric loads.

Suspension Suspension -210 20 w w p p 10 Steel Edge Beam -110 w p
Suspension
Suspension
-210
20
w
w
p
p
10
Steel Edge Beam
-110
w
p
0
w
p
-10
Steel Edge Beam
-10
(m)
(m)
0
25
49
74
98
123
0
25
49
74
98
123
(a)
(b)
(kN ・ m)M
N (kN)

Fig. 7 Bending moment diagram, (a), and normal force diagram, (b), for stress-ribbon ‘suspension’ bridge with steel edge beams under full and asymmetric loads.

Cable-

Cable-

Stayed

Suspension

Stayed

Suspension

 
50 50 with central clamp Cable-to-girder with central clamp Cable-to-girder 30 distance d=40cm Steel Edge
50
50
with central clamp
Cable-to-girder
with central clamp
Cable-to-girder
30
distance d=40cm
Steel Edge Beam
30
distance d=40cm
Steel Edge Beam
without central clamp
without central clamp
10
10
-10
-10
-30
-30
(m)
-50 0
(m) -50
25
49
74
98
123
0
25
49
74
98
123
(a)
(b)
M
(kN
m)・

Fig. 8 Bending moment diagrams for stress-ribbon ‘cable-stayed suspension’ bridge, (a), and those for stress-ribbon ‘suspension’ bridge, (b), with cable-to-girder 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

pre-stressing force for the ‘cable-stayed 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 cross-sectional area of the beam is necessary.

Central Clamp Central Clamp w w d d p 40cm p 40cm Cable Stayed Cable
Central Clamp
Central Clamp
w
w
d
d
p
40cm
p
40cm
Cable Stayed
Cable Stayed
Suspension
Suspension
Steel Edge Beam
Steel Edge Beam
0cm
0cm
40cm
40cm
Suspension
Suspension
0cm
0cm
15 25
35
45
(cm)
5 15
25
35
(kN・m)
y max
M max
(a)
(b)

Fig. 9 Effects of central clamp and cable-to-girder distance on maximum deflection, (a), and maximum bending moment, (b), for two kinds of bridge with ‘steel edge beams’.

Central Clamp Central Clamp w w d d p 40cm p 40cm Cable Stayed Cable
Central Clamp
Central Clamp
w
w
d
d
p
40cm
p
40cm
Cable Stayed
Cable Stayed
Suspension
Suspension
Concrete Edge Beam
Concrete Edge Beam
0cm
0cm
40cm
40cm
Suspension
Suspension
0cm
0cm
15 25
35
45
(cm)
5 15
25
35
(kN・m)
y max
M max
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10 Effects of central clamp and cable-to-girder distance on maximum deflection, (a), and on
Fig. 10 Effects of central clamp and cable-to-girder distance on maximum deflection, (a), and on maximum bending
moment, (b), for two kinds of bridge with ‘concrete edge beams’
-0.4
-0.4
α= +3°
α=
-3°
, 0°
, +3°
-0.2
f
f
= 1.40
-0.2
T
B
f
f
= 1.19
T
B
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
V r
V r
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
V FS
V FS
(m/s)
(m/s)
Fig. 11 Flutter characteristics of earlier proposed
stress-ribbon suspension bridge.
Fig.
13
Flutter
characteristics
of
stress-ribbon
cable-stayed suspension bridge.
δ
δ

4. Aerodynamic Characteristics and Static Loads

4.1 Flutter characteristics of earlier proposed stress-ribbon suspension bridge Fig. 11 shows the sample results of the wind tunnel model test for the ‘earlier proposed stress-ribbon suspension’ bridge. The cross-sectional shapes of 2D models examined are the concrete girder and the open-grating steel girder with and without a rubber plate, Fig. 1(b) and 1(c). It was assumed that the symmetric 1 st mode in torsion and the symmetric 2 nd 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 bending-torsion flutter occurs at the reduced critical flutter speed, V Fr = 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 full-scale bridge, far below the design speed. Therefore, the structure in Fig. 1(a) is the most

Vertical Bending Tortion Asym. 1st f =0.500 Hz Sym. 1st f =0.722 Hz Asym. 2nd
Vertical Bending
Tortion
Asym. 1st
f =0.500 Hz
Sym. 1st
f =0.722 Hz
Asym. 2nd
f =1.14 Hz
Sym. 2nd
f =1.13 Hz
Jinya Sym. 2nd
f =1.15 Hz
Sym. 1st
f =1.63 Hz
Asym. 1st
f =2.51 Hz

Fig. 12 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for earlier developed stress-ribbon suspension bridge.

Vertical Bending

Tortion

suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
suspension bridge. Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st f = 0.73
Sym. 1st f = 0.73 Asym. 1st Sym. 2nd f = 1.28 Asym. 2nd f
Sym. 1st
f = 0.73
Asym. 1st
Sym. 2nd
f = 1.28
Asym. 2nd
f = 1.69
Sym. 1st
f = 0.91
f = 1.12
Asym. 1st
f = 1.68
(a)
Vertical Bending
Tortion
Sym. 1st
f = 0.71
Asym. 1st
f = 0.90
Sym. 2nd
f = 1.26
Asym. 2nd
f = 1.64
Sym. 1st
f = 1.06
Asym. 1st
f = 1.61
(b)

Fig. 14 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge with ‘steel edge girder’, (a), and those with ‘concrete edge girder’, (b).

Vertical Bending

Tortion

edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
edge girder’, (b). Vertical Bending T o r t i o n Sym. 1st Asym. 1st

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 stress-ribbon 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 full-steel’ structure are discussed below.

4.2

bridges

tunnel model test

results for the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed 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 st mode in torsion and the symmetric 1 st mode in vertical bending shown in Fig. 14(b) are coupled. It is seen in Fig. 13 that V Fr for this bridge is high enough: above 20 that corresponds to above 50 m/s for the full-scale bridge. Although the flutter characteristics of the ‘stress-ribbon 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 ‘cable-stayed 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 stress-ribbon bridge girder with a semi-rectangular cross-section. Also C D for the circular or semi-circular edge beam of steel or concrete is much smaller as super-critical Re (Reynolds number) flow is formed on the beam in the full-scale 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 ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ and the ‘stressribbon suspension’ bridges for pedestrian use. The girder has either steel or pre-stressed 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 one-fourteenth of the conventional concrete stress-ribbon 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., Half-circular and half-elliptic

edge modifications for increasing aerodynamic stability of stress-ribbon pedestrian bridges, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol. 69-71 (1997)

861-870.

2. Mizuta, Y. et al., Proposal of a steel stress-ribbon pedestrian bridge and its mechanical characteristics, J. Structural Eng., JSCE, Vol. 43A (1997) 1191-1196.

3. Yoshimura, T. et al., Steel and hybrid stress-ribbon pedestrian bridges, Proc. IABSE Symp. Kobe Japan, Vol. 79 (1998) 329-334.

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) 697-703.

5. Yoshimura, T. et al, Aerodynamic stability of proposed hybrid stress-ribbon bridges, Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Wind and structures, Cheju Korea, (2000) 153-162.

6. Gimsing, N.J., Cable supported bridges, 2 nd 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.

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 7 14 ~9 16