SELF-ANCHORED SUSPENSION BRIDGES

By John A. Ochsendorf,1 Student Member, ASCE, and David P. Billington,2 Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper, summarizing the beginnings, analysis, and future of self-anchored suspension bridges,
examines the development of this unique bridge form, its uses over the past century, and its advantages and
disadvantages. The Konohana Bridge in Osaka, Japan, illustrates this type and provides a case study to compare
conventional suspension bridge theory with the results of a finite-element model. The final portion of the paper
evaluates the potential for self-anchored suspension bridge design, and provides recommendations for design
engineers. The goal here is to describe the structural behavior of self-anchored bridges in general, and of the
Konohana Bridge in particular.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 12/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Self-anchored suspension bridges differ from conventional
suspension bridges because they do not require massive end
anchorages. Instead, the main cables are secured to each end
of the bridge deck, or stiffening girder, which carries the hor-
izontal component of cable tension. Therefore, the end sup-
ports resist only the vertical component of tension, an advan-
tage where the site cannot easily accommodate external
anchorages.
Because the stiffening girder supports the cable tension, the
girder must be placed before the main cable can be erected.
This construction sequence, the opposite of that of a conven-
tional suspension bridge, limits the self-anchored form to mod-
erate spans. Also unlike the conventional suspension form, the
self-anchored bridge analysis must include the influence of the
large axial force in the deck. With these issues in mind, this
paper will discuss the historical development, structural anal-
ysis, and potential applications of this bridge form, and will
conclude with some reflections on recent self-anchored sus-
pension bridges.
that the soil conditions would not be adequate for external
anchorages (Leonhardt 1984a). Chains composed of eyebars
provided for ease of anchoring to the stiffening girder. Engi-
neers around the world recognized the Cologne-Deutz Bridge
as an innovative form, and for 15 years after its completion it
influenced the design of other bridges. Specifically, the three
Allegheny River crossings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the
smaller Kiyosu Bridge in Tokyo, Japan, closely replicated the
appearance of the Cologne-Deutz Bridge (Tajima and Sugi-
yama 1991). It was destroyed in 1945, and a steel box girder
bridge exists today on the original abutments (Prade 1990).
The three nearly identical bridges constructed over the Al-
legheny River in Pittsburgh from 1925 to 1928 represent the
most important American application of the self-anchored
form. In evaluating the proposed Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth
Street crossings, the city art commission of Pittsburgh re-
quested a suspension form for aesthetic reasons. Inspired by

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
In the second half of the 19th century, Austrian engineer
Josef Langer and American engineer Charles Bender indepen-
dently conceived of the self-anchored suspension bridge (Mul-
lins 1936a). Langer first wrote of his idea in 1859, and Bender
staked his claim with a patent issued in 1867 (‘‘Patent’’ 1867).
Neither designer used continuous cables; instead, they an-
chored the main cables to the girder at the midspan as well as
at each end of the bridge. In 1870 Langer built a small self-
anchored bridge, in Poland, which carried train traffic, while
Bender apparently never constructed a self-anchored bridge.
Although these engineers did not directly influence future de- FIG. 1. Original 1915 Cologne-Deutz Bridge in Germany
signs, the self-anchored suspension bridge form became com- (Prade 1990)
mon in Germany in the beginning of the 20th century.
German engineers built the first large-scale, self-anchored
suspension bridge over the Rhine River at Cologne, Germany,
in 1915 (Mullins 1936b) (Fig. 1). This Cologne-Deutz Bridge
had a main span of 185 m and utilized temporary wooden
scaffolding to support the steel girders until the suspension
cables were in place (‘‘Le Nouveau’’ 1920). An art commis-
sion selected the suspension form for aesthetic reasons, and
engineers opted to self-anchor the suspension cables for fear
1
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Operations Res., Princeton
Univ., Princeton, NJ 08544.
2
Gordon Y. S. Wu Professor, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Operations Res.,
Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2000. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on March 23, 1998. This paper is part of the Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, August, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN
1084-0702/99/0003-0151–0156/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 17921. FIG. 2. 1928 Seventh Street Bridge in Pittsburgh

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 151

J. Bridge Eng., 1999, 4(3): 151-156

 FIG. 3. Original 1929 Cologne-Mülheim Bridge in Germany (Strassenbrücke 1929)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 12/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the 1915 Rhine crossing at Cologne-Deutz, Pittsburgh engi-
neers chose to self-anchor the cables (‘‘Three’’ 1924). The
Pittsburgh crossings clearly imitated the Cologne-Deutz
Bridge by using eyebar chains for the main cables, arched
towers of nearly identical form, and continuous steel girders.
A visual comparison of the Seventh Street Bridge (Fig. 2) with
the Cologne-Deutz bridge (Fig. 1) shows these similarities. As
at Cologne, the Pittsburgh engineers cited poor conditions that
would not allow for external anchorages.
The Pittsburgh bridges have main spans of 131–135 m,
nearly 30% shorter than the Cologne-Deutz Bridge, and were
constructed using a method of cantilever construction (Covell
1926). Utilizing temporary compression struts between the
eyebar chain and the stiffening girder, engineers cantilevered
sections of the bridge out from each support until the river
was spanned and the suspension chains could be connected at
the middle. This method of construction eliminated falsework
in the navigation channel and represented a significant im-
provement over the construction technique for the Cologne-
Deutz Bridge. Each Pittsburgh bridge took less than 15 months
to build, and when the Sixth Street Bridge was opened in
1928, it received the American Institute for Steel Construc-
tion’s first annual award for the most beautiful bridge (Plow-
den 1984). Although rehabilitated in 1995, all three continue
to function after 70 years in service (Stickel 1996).
In Germany, four major suspension bridges over the Rhine
River utilized the self-anchored form in the 25 years after the
completion of the Cologne-Deutz Bridge (Prade 1990). The
most notable of the German self-anchored bridges was the
1929 Cologne-Mülheim Bridge, with a main span of 315 m,
which was the longest suspension bridge in Europe when com-
pleted (Schleicher 1929) (Fig. 3). This bridge was the result
of a design competition in which a jury initially chose a steel
arch bridge, from 38 entries, based largely on aesthetic con-
siderations (Rein 1927). In 1927, the mayor of Cologne over-
turned the jury’s decision and ordered the design to be changed
to a self-anchored suspension bridge, for fear that the poor soil
conditions would not support the thrust of an arch (Leonhardt
1984a). Although destroyed in 1945 and rebuilt with external
anchorages, the original Cologne-Mülheim Bridge remains the
longest self-anchored span ever built.
Beginning in the 1930s, some engineers wrote favorably
about the self-anchored suspension bridge not for its absence
of anchorage blocks, but for its ease of analysis. Publications
in the United States (Gronquist 1941) and France (Baticle
1943) advocated the use of the elastic theory for the design of
self-anchored suspension bridges. By this period it was well
known that the deflection theory was necessary for accurate
analysis of suspension bridges, yet engineers theorized that the
axial compression in the girder would cause the self-anchored
bridge to behave according to the much simpler elastic theory
(Steinman 1929). This belief contributed to the construction
of several more self-anchored designs in Germany and the
United States during the 1930s. (For a more complete discus-
sion of the development of suspension-bridge analysis, see
Bounopane and Billington 1993.)
152 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999
J. Bridge Eng., 1999, 4(3): 151-156
Following the Pittsburgh bridges of the 1920s, only two
other self-anchored suspension bridges appeared in the United
States: the 69-m span of 1933 over the Little Niangua River
in Missouri, and the 107-m span of 1939 over the Wabash
River in Indiana (Gronquist 1941). German engineers contin-
ued to construct self-anchored suspension bridges throughout
the 1930s and 1940s, but cable-stayed bridges came to dom-
inate postwar reconstruction. In 1954, German engineers com-
pleted the last large-scale, self-anchored suspension bridge in
Germany at Duisberg, with a span of 230 m (Prade 1990).
In 1941, the 378-m span Cologne-Rodenkirchen Bridge, de-
signed by Fritz Leonhardt, used conventional external anchor-
ages to surpass the Cologne-Mülheim Bridge as the longest
suspension bridge in Europe (Leonhardt 1984b). Leonhardt
continued to design longer suspension spans, and his efforts
culminated in the 1961 proposed design of a monocable sus-
pension bridge for the Rhine River crossing at Emmerich. Al-
though never built, Leonhardt considered it his ‘‘most beau-
tiful design’’ (Leonhardt 1984b). Thirty years later, Japanese
engineers successfully revived Leonhardt’s monocable ideas in
the 1990 Konohana Bridge of Osaka, Japan.
MODERN SELF-ANCHORED BRIDGES
Completed in 1990, with a main span of 300 m, the Ko-
nohana Bridge in Osaka is the first large-scale, self-anchored
suspension bridge to be built for vehicular traffic since 1954,
and its innovative design suggests further consideration for the
self-anchored form (Fig. 4). In addition to its self-anchoring,
the Konohana Bridge is the first large-scale, monocable sus-
pension bridge, with the main cable and inclined hangers
aligned in a single vertical plane along the center of the road-
way. The self-weight of 0.87 tons/m2 (170 psf) is considerably
less than typical 300-m spans, which can weigh between 1.0
and 2.0 tons per square meter (200–400 psf) (Buchwalter, un-
published, 1994). By increasing the sag:span ratio to 1:6, a
value greater than most comparable suspension bridges, the
designers reduced the axial force in the deck. The stiffening
girder depth of 3.17 m, or 1/95 of the main span, gives the
FIG. 4. 1990 Konohana Bridge in Japan
 TABLE 1. Konohana Bridge Dimensions TABLE 2. Major Self-Anchored Suspension Bridges

Dimension Value Main Side

(1) (2) span spans Sag:
Main span 300 m (984 ft) Name (Location) Year (m) (m) Span
Total suspended span 540 m (1,771.2 ft) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Sag: span 1:6 Cologne-Deutz (Germany) 1915 184.5 92.3 1:8.6
Depth of girder 3.17 m (10.4 ft) Seventh Street (Pittsburgh) 1926 134.8 67.5 1:8.1
Width of girder 26.5 m (86.9 ft) Kiyosu (Japan) 1928 91.5 45.8 1:7.1
Girder depth: main span 1:95 Cologne-Mülheim (Germany) 1929 315.0 91.0 1:9.1
Self-weight 0.87 tons/m2 (170 psf ) Konohana (Japan) 1990 300.0 120.0 1:6.0
Traffic capacity 4 lanes Yong Jong (Korea) 1999 300.0 125.0 1:5.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 12/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

anchored suspension bridges. Because the force in the stiff-

ening girder is equal to the horizontal component of main ca-
ble tension, recent designs have increased the sag of the main
cable in order to reduce the value of axial compression in the
stiffening girder. In general, the sag:span ratios of self-an-
chored bridges are around 1:6—considerably greater than the
sag:span ratios of externally anchored suspension bridges,
which typically are around 1:10.

ANALYSIS OF SELF-ANCHORED SUSPENSION

FIG. 5. Elevation Diagram of Konohana Bridge
bridge a slender appearance. Table 1 summarizes the general
dimensions of the Konohana Bridge (Fig. 5 gives an elevation
diagram).
The success of the Konohana Bridge is due to three main
aspects of its design: (1) the method of erection; (2) the use
of inclined hangers; and (3) the use of a steel box girder. First,
an efficient erection scheme resulted from prefabricating the
girder in five large sections, weighing as much as 2,700 tons
each. Floating cranes lifted these sections into place, and two
temporary supports within the main span supported the girder
sections during erection (Kamei et al. 1992). After construct-
ing the two towers, the builders installed the main cable using
prefabricated parallel wire strands, thus avoiding the time-con-
suming process of cable spinning.
The second successful design aspect were the inclined sus-
penders, pretensioned to avoid slackening under any loading
condition. The pretensioning also jacked up the main girder to
ensure accurate control during erection. Third, the inverted
trapezoidal box girder, designed with sufficient moment ca-
pacity to span 120 m between the temporary supports, made
the erection scheme possible and minimized the necessary
falsework. In addition, the closed box shape provides excellent
aerodynamic performance and high torsional rigidity, critical
requirements for a bridge supported by only one main cable.
Like the landmark Cologne-Deutz Bridge of 1915, the Ko-
nohana Bridge has influenced other bridge designs. Most no-
tably, the Yong Jong Bridge, which will provide a critical link
with the new airport in Seoul, South Korea, when completed
in 2,000, is very similar to the Konohana Bridge in its overall
form and dimensions. Its 300-m main span and A-frame tow-
ers are clearly derived from the Konohana Bridge, but it has
three significant differences. First, in order to decrease the ax-
ial girder force due to self-anchoring, the main span cable sag
is increased to 60 m, 20% greater than the Konohana Bridge.
Second, the Yong Jong Bridge utilizes two main cables, which
curve three-dimensionally from the top of each tower to the
outside of the girder at midspan, and provide increased lateral
stability (Kwon et al. 1995). Third, the stiffening girder utilizes
a 7-m deep truss, which carries rail traffic on the lower level,
and eases construction by spanning long distances without the
support of the main cable (Gil and Cho 1998).
Table 2 presents a summary of the development of self-
BRIDGES
Two theories have dominated suspension bridge analysis
over the last century—the elastic theory and the deflection
theory. The elastic theory did not account for the stiffening
effect of the main cable under tension, and thus gave higher
moments in the stiffening girder. The deflection theory (or ex-
act theory) accounted for the second-order effects of cable
stiffness and correctly reduced the moment carried by the stiff-
ening girder (Melan 1913). By the 1930s, suspension bridge
designers were aware of the economy offered by the deflection
theory, and regarded the elastic theory to be obsolete (Stein-
man 1929).
The elastic theory gives the moment at any point in the deck
girder as
M = M ⬘ ⫺ hy (1)
where M ⬘ = live-load moment of unsuspended girder; h =
horizontal component of cable tension produced by live load;
and y = ordinate of main span cable curve at location of de-
sired moment. Thus, the live load moment produced in the
girder is reduced by the effect of the horizontal component of
live load tension in the cable.
However, the elastic theory does not account for the addi-
tional relieving moment provided by the horizontal component
of total cable tension (dead plus live load) when the bridge
deflects a distance v, under the live load. The deflection theory
accounts for this cable stiffness and reduces the moment in
the girder by an additional amount (H ⫹ h)v. Thus the de-
flection theory is an extension of the elastic theory and is writ-
ten
M = M ⬘ ⫺ hy ⫺ (H ⫹ h)v (2)
where (H ⫹ h) = horizontal component of tension in cable
due to dead and live load. By accounting for cable stiffness,
the deflection theory reduces the required girder stiffness and
provides considerable economy over the elastic theory (Stein-
man 1929).
Accounting for the large axial force in the deck of self-
anchored suspension bridges requires an adaptation in tradi-
tional suspension bridge analysis. Because the deck carries the
entire horizontal force component of the cable, the axial force
in the deck is equal to the quantity (H ⫹ h). Under a down-
ward deflection v, the axial force will produce an additional
positive moment (H ⫹ h)v if the bridge deck is considered to
be initially horizontal.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 153

J. Bridge Eng., 1999, 4(3): 151-156

 Adding this moment to (2), the deflection theory, yields (1), TABLE 3. Comparison of Deflection Theory and Computer
which is the basic equation of the elastic theory. This suggests Model
that the simple elastic theory can be used to account for sec- Deflection %
ond-order effects in self-anchored suspension bridges. It was Cases theory SAP2000 Difference
this result that caused engineers to advocate the use of the (1) (2) (3) (4)
elastic theory for self-anchored suspension bridge analysis in Load Case A:
the 1930s and 1940s (Gronquist 1941). Although the elastic vmidspan 0.872 m 0.880 m ⫹0.9%
theory provides approximate results for self-anchored spans of Mmidspan 3,362 ton-m 4,473 ton-m ⫹33%
50–200 m, it results in significant errors for spans longer than Load Case B:
200 m. For spans of this length, the deflection theory can es- vmidspan 0.604 m 0.552 m ⫺8.6%
timate the behavior of self-anchored bridges. However, the de- Mmidspan 6,382 ton-m 6,023 ton-m ⫺5.6%
flection theory is cumbersome for more complex models, and
it is now far better to use a nonlinear finite-element model.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 12/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 4. Comparison of Inclined and Vertical Hanger Config-

CASE STUDY: KONOHANA BRIDGE
In August of 1997, the first writer visited the Konohana
Bridge in Osaka, Japan, and met with the chief design engi-
neer, Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka of Hitachi-Zosen, Ltd. The purpose
of the visit was to gather technical information on the bridge’s
design so that an accurate computer model of the bridge could
be produced. The computer model was constructed on
SAP2000, a commercially available software package with
nonlinear capabilities (SAP2000 1996). The purpose of the
model was threefold:
1. To compare the results of the more complex FEM model
with those yielded by the simpler deflection theory
2. To determine the effect of the inclined hangers on the
stiffness of the bridge
3. To determine the effect of the girder camber on the be-
havior of the bridge
For the purposes of understanding the basic structural be-
havior of the Konohana Bridge, two primary load cases were
considered. Load case A consists of a uniformly distributed
live load that which acts over the entire main span and pro-
duces the maximum deflection at midspan of the bridge. Load
case B consists of a uniformly distributed live load that acts
on the central third of the main span to produce a large positive
moment in the stiffening girder at midspan. In both cases, the
writers applied a uniform live load of 8.4 tons/m to the main
span, which is the same live load value used by the design
engineers.
Deflection Theory versus Nonlinear Finite-Element
Model
To assess the accuracy of suspension bridge theory for de-
signing self-anchored suspension bridges, the results of the
deflection theory are compared to the SAP2000 model. The
deflection theory analysis used the three-span configuration
with a continuous girder to more closely replicate the com-
puter model. The results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the deflection theory provides reasonably
close correlation with the nonlinear computer model for both
maximum deflection and maximum moment at midspan. How-
ever, the deflection theory does not accurately describe the
overall behavior of the Konohana Bridge under all load con-
ditions. Specifically, in calculating the maximum deflection
vmidspan, the corresponding moment Mmidspan of 3,362 ton-m is
significantly less than the moment of 4,473 ton-m yielded by
the computer model. This result suggests that the deflection
theory can be used for preliminary design of self-anchored
suspension bridges but is not reliable for design calculations.
Effect of Inclined Hangers
To determine the effects of the prestressed inclined hangers
on the stiffness of the Konohana Bridge, an additional
154 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999
uration
Inclined Vertical %
Cases hangers hangers Difference
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Load Case A:
vmidspan 0.880 m 1.105 m ⫹26%
Mmidspan 4,473 ton-m 5,699 ton-m ⫹27%
Load Case B:
vmidspan 0.552 m 0.702 m ⫹27%
Mmidspan 6,023 ton-m 8,062 ton-m ⫹34%
SAP2000 model was created that used vertical suspenders sim-
ilar to a conventional suspension bridge. All other aspects of
the design were identical and the results of the two different
models were compared. Each design was loaded with load
cases A and B to produce the maximum deflection and a large
positive moment at midspan. These results are summarized in
Table 4.
The use of inclined hangers clearly has a beneficial effect
on the behavior of the Konohana Bridge. If the bridge had
been constructed with a conventional system of vertical sus-
penders, the maximum moment in the stiffening girder would
have been 34% greater than the current system and the max-
imum deflections would have increased by 26%. Although the
inclined hanger system presents some construction and design
difficulties, the truss effect of the hangers substantially stiffens
the superstructure. In addition to improved structural rigidity
under static loading, the inclined hanger system increases dy-
namic damping, a critical factor for long-span bridge design
(Kamei et al. 1992).
Effect of Girder Camber
To determine the effects of the deck camber on the behavior
of the Konohana Bridge, an additional SAP2000 model was
created with a perfectly horizontal stiffening girder. On the
actual Konohana Bridge, the stiffening girder is 3.9 m higher
at midspan than at each end of the bridge. Due to the large
axial force in the stiffening girder, it was suspected that this
camber would significantly affect the maximum moments and
deflections under live load. Once again, all other aspects of
the design were unchanged and the zero-camber model was
loaded with the load cases A and B. The results are compared
in Table 5.
Surprisingly, the use of a cambered deck has very little ef-
fect on the overall behavior of the Konohana Bridge. If the
bridge had been constructed with a perfectly horizontal deck,
the maximum deflections would have increased by 7% but the
maximum moment in the stiffening girder would hardly
change. This suggests that the arching effect of the cambered
deck stiffens the bridge and slightly decreases deflections, but
does not significantly influence the method in which the bridge
carries loads.
In summary, the SAP2000 model provided a clearer under-
standing of the complex behavior of the Konohana Bridge. It

J. Bridge Eng., 1999, 4(3): 151-156

 TABLE 5. Comparison of Cambered versus Horizontal Stiff-
ening Girder
% conventional, three-span, self-anchored suspension bridge (Ro-
Cases 3.9-m camber Zero camber Difference
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Load Case A:
vmidspan 0.880 m 0.943 m ⫹7.2%
Mmidspan 4,473 ton-m 4,615 ton-m ⫹3.2%
Load Case B:
vmidspan 0.552 m 0.571 m ⫹3.4%
Mmidspan 6,023 ton-m 6,019 ton-m ⫺0.1%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 12/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
demonstrated three main ideas closely related to the workings
of this self-anchored bridge:
1. The deflection theory can be used only for preliminary
approximations for self-anchored bridge design.
2. The inclined hangers stiffen the bridge by providing a
truss-like effect in the superstructure.
3. The camber in the deck does not significantly influence
the overall behavior of the bridge.
Based on the above study of this monocable self-anchored
bridge, the following section will provide conclusions about
self-anchored design.
ASSESSMENT OF SELF-ANCHORED SUSPENSION
BRIDGE DESIGN
The success of the Konohana Bridge is an example of the
potential for self-anchored suspension bridges to span dis-
tances of 250–350 m. Several advantages are immediately
seen for this structural form, including the elimination of large
anchor blocks, a relatively stiff superstructure, and the aes-
thetic benefits of a traditional suspension bridge profile.
There are also several clear disadvantages that have pre-
vented self-anchored suspension bridges from gaining wide-
spread acceptance. First and foremost, the construction diffi-
culties of erecting the stiffening girder before erecting the main
cables will always present a challenge to the designer. Sec-
ondly, the self-anchored suspension bridge is similar in con-
cept to a tied arch and therefore has a lower degree of redun-
dancy than a conventional suspension bridge. The stiffening
girder must be carefully maintained and protected from dam-
age in order to prevent a catastrophic collapse. Finally, the
self-anchored suspension bridge is an unfamiliar form that can
present analysis and design difficulties.
The economic benefits of self-anchored bridge design will
vary depending on the specific site conditions. As the Kono-
hana Bridge illustrates, self-anchored bridges can compete
with cable-stayed bridges for moderate span lengths. For spans
under 1,000 m, a cable-stayed bridge will often provide a more
economical solution than a conventional suspension bridge.
Most components of cable-stayed bridges are more expensive
than those of suspension bridges, but the large cost due to
anchorage construction makes the suspension bridge a more
expensive alternative. The cost of the anchorage system makes
up a substantial portion of the cost of a conventional suspen-
sion bridge, and, by eliminating the external anchorages, the
self-anchored form can provide a competitive solution for
moderate span lengths. Although self-anchored bridges can of-
fer a reduction in anchorage cost, the success of any self-
anchored design will ultimately depend on the method of erec-
tion.
FUTURE APPLICATIONS
In addition to the Yong Jong Bridge in Korea, recent pro-
posals for the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge replacement
J. Bridge Eng., 1999, 4(3): 151-156
included two self-anchored suspension bridge designs. A
unique single-tower design was submitted as well as a more
senbaum 1997). Recent interest shown by engineers in Korea
and the United States is further evidence that the self-anchored
suspension bridge is not an obsolete form. For spans on the
order of 250–400 m, three-span self-anchored bridges can of-
fer a competitive design solution, while maintaining a tradi-
tional suspension appearance.
Self-anchored suspension bridges can also provide excellent
solutions for shorter spans, such as those for pedestrian
bridges. Over the past twenty years, German engineer Jörg
Schlaich and his partners have produced a number of remark-
able self-anchored pedestrian bridges throughout Germany
(Holgate 1997). Minimal use of materials and innovative cable
configurations characterize these elegant bridges, which should
stimulate other bridge designers to explore the self-anchored
form. In Schlaich’s bridges, self-anchoring the main cables
prestress the deck and results in a slender profile. The success
of these designs further demonstrates the suitability of self-
anchored systems for pedestrian and roadway bridges of mod-
erate spans.
CONCLUSIONS
Although self-anchored suspension bridges have been con-
structed throughout the 20th century, few designers think of
them as a viable solution today. Recent bridges in Japan and
Germany demonstrate that the self-anchored form can provide
an efficient and elegant solution for moderate span lengths,
and suggest that bridge designers should consider the form
more often. Existing theories can be used for preliminary de-
sign of self-anchored bridges, but finite-element computer pro-
grams should be used for more detailed analyses.
The Konohana Bridge may prove to be one of the more
important bridges of the last half of the twentieth century. By
building upon German achievements in self-anchored suspen-
sion bridge design, Japanese engineers successfully revived a
bridge form that had been neglected for 35 years. This paper
has tried to identify self-anchored suspension bridges of the
Konohana form as an overlooked solution for spans on the
order of 300 meters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers would like to thank Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka of Hitachi-Zosen,
Ltd., for providing information about the Konohana Bridge; the late Blair
Birdsall and Eric Hines for their help in locating sources on self-anchored
suspension bridge design; Cosema Crawford and Arthur Hedgren for their
invaluable comments on an early version of the paper; and Erhan Çinlar
and the Gordon Y. S. Wu Fund for financial support.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Baticle, E. (1943). ‘‘Les ponts suspendus à auto-encrage (self-anchored
suspension bridges).’’ Le Génie Civil, 120(22), 256–258 (in French).
Bounopane, S., and Billington, D. (1993). ‘‘Theory and history of sus-
pension bridge design from 1823 to 1940.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
119(3), 954–977.
Covell, V. R. (1926). ‘‘Erecting a self-anchored suspension bridge—Sev-
enth Street Bridge at Pittsburgh.’’ Engrg. News Rec., 97(13), 502–505.
Gil, H., and Cho, C. (1998). ‘‘Yong Jong Grand Suspension Bridge, Ko-
rea.’’ Struct. Engrg. Int., 8(2), 97–98.
Gronquist, C. (1941). ‘‘Simplified theory of the self-anchored suspension
bridge.’’ Trans., ASCE, 107, 955–992.
Holgate, A. (1997). ‘‘Pedestrian bridges.’’ The art of structural engi-
neering: The work of Jörg Schlaich and his team, Edition Axel Menges,
Stuttgart, Germany, 198–243.
Kamei, M. et al. (1992). ‘‘Konohana Bridge, Japan.’’ Struct. Engrg. Int.,
2(1), 3–5.
Kwon, Y. et al. (1995). ‘‘Aerodynamic stability of a self-anchored double
deck suspension bridge.’’ J. Wind Engrg. and Industrial Aerodyn., 54
and 55, 25–34.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999 / 155
 ‘‘Le nouveau pont-route suspendu sur le Rhin à Cologne (The new sus-
pended road bridge over the Rhine at Cologne).’’ (1920). Le Génie
Civil, 77(23), 460–462 (in French).
Leonhardt, F. (1984a). Baumeister in einer umwälzenden Zeit (Master
builder in an age of many changes). Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart,
Germany (in German).
Leonhardt, F. (1984b). Bridges—aesthetics and design. MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, Mass.
Melan, J. (1913). Theory of arches and suspension bridges. D. B. Stein-
man, translator, Myron C. Clark, Chicago.
Mullins, H. (1936a). ‘‘Self-anchored suspension bridges.’’ Letter to the
Editor, Engrg. News Rec., May 14, 711 (in response to a letter to the
editor by A. A. Jakkula, which was published in ENR March 26, 1936,
464.)
Mullins, H. (1936b). ‘‘The self-anchored suspension bridge.’’ Engrg.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 12/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
News Rec., 116(2), 45–49.
‘‘Patent Office Report.’’ (1867). Patent No. 71,955, Charles Bender of
New York, N.Y., Suspension Bridge, v. 2, 1433.
Plowden, D. (1984). Bridges: The spans of North America. Viking Press,
New York.
Prade, M. (1990). Ponts et viaducs remarquables d’Europe (Remarkable
bridges and viaducts of Europe). Brissaud, Poitiers, Paris (in French).
Rein, W. (1927). ‘‘Engerer Wettbewerb um Entwürfe für eine feste Stras-
senbrücke über den Rhein in Köln-Mülheim (Close competition for
designs for permanent road bridge over the Rhine at Cologne Mül-
heim).’’ Der Bauingenieur, 8(14), 241–250 (in German).
Rosenbaum, D. (1997). ‘‘Bay Area rushes to judgment.’’ Engrg. News
Rec., May 19, 10–11.
SAP2000 reference manual, version 6.0. (1996). Computers and Struc-
tures, Inc. (CSI), Berkeley, Calif.
Schleicher, F. (1929). ‘‘Die Strassenbrücke über den Rhein bei Köln-
Mülheim (Road bridge over the Rhine at Cologne-Mülheim).’’ Der
Bauingenieur, 10(47), 825–850 (in German).
156 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1999
J. Bridge Eng., 1999, 4(3): 151-156
Steinman, D. (1929). A practical treatise on suspension bridges, Second
Edition. Wiley, New York.
Stickel, G. (1996). ‘‘Rehabilitation of three self-anchored suspension
bridges: The 6th Street, 7th Street, and 9th Street bridges.’’ Proc., 13th
Annu. Int. Bridge Conf., Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania,
Pittsburgh, Pa., 335–342.
‘‘Strassenbrücke Köln-Mülheim (Road bridge at Cologne Mülheim).’’
(1929). Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin (in German).
Tajima, J., and Sugiyama, K. (1991). ‘‘Historical transition of suspension
bridge tower forms in Japan.’’ Bridge aesthetics around the world,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washing-
ton, D.C., 122–132.
‘‘Three new Allegheny River Bridges to be of unusual type.’’ (1924).
Engrg. News Rec., 93(25), 995–997.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
H = horizontal component of main cable tension due to
dead load;
h = increase in horizontal cable tension due to live load;
M = moment in girder at point of interest;
M ⬘ = moment in unsuspended beam;
v = vertical deflection of main span cable and girder,
change in y; and
y = ordinate of main span cable curve.
Subscripts
midspan = deflection and moment at middle of main span.