Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of

Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

Bin Sun1,2, C.S. Cai2,3,* and Rucheng Xiao1

1Departmentof Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
3School of Civil Engineering, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha 410076, China

(Received: 20 March 2012; Received revised form: 11 March 2013; Accepted: 14 March 2013)

Abstract: This paper presents a systematic analysis strategy for cable-stayed-

suspension bridges. A four-step approach for the determination of the reasonable
finished dead load state is established, focusing on the optimization of the tension
forces and shapes of all cables. The critical distribution of the traffic load is imposed
on the bridge simultaneously with the dead load to calculate its nonlinear effect.
Taking the finished dead load state as the initial state, the nonlinear effect of each load
in the service state is analyzed independently. The superimposition principle is
adopted to obtain the load combination. A 1400 m span cable-stayed-suspension
bridge is presented as a case study. Finally, three key geometric parameters are studied
from the viewpoint of the structural behavior. As a result, a suspension-to-span ratio
of 0.4 to 0.6, a larger sag-to-span ratio up to 1/11.0, and two to four crossing hangers
are recommended. With a higher structural rigidity and stability, this type of bridge is
proven as an excellent alternative to cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges.

Key words: cable-stayed-suspension bridge, analysis strategy, reasonable finished dead load state, traffic load
analysis, parametric study, suspension-to-span ratio, sag-to-span ratio, fatigue of hangers.

1. INTRODUCTION displacement of the girder (Figure 1). German engineer

Cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges are the
two dominant structural types of long span bridges. As
a combination of the two, cable-stayed-suspension
bridges have attracted many researchers’ attention. This
type of bridge has a higher structural rigidity and lower
cost than the suspension bridge, while it has lower
compression forces in the girder, thereby gaining a
higher stability than the cable-stayed bridge (Xiao and
Xiang 1999a). Therefore, this can provide a better
solution for long span bridges under deep-sea or soft
foundation conditions (Zhu et al. 2007).
The evolution of this type of bridges dates back to
John A. Roebling’s great contribution to the Brooklyn
Bridge as a masterpiece in the late 19th century
(Gimsing 1997). In his innovative work, stay cables
were installed in the suspension bridge to reduce the
F. Dischinger improved the concept by eliminating the
vertical hangers in the cable-stayed parts (Figure 2) in
the 1930s (These hangers are called cross hangers
hereafter). However, it had not been turned into reality
until two bridges less than 300 m were built recently
(Huang 2000; Lou and Yang 2001; Sato et al. 2003).
The result of experiments on-site proved that the good
collaboration between the two structural parts resulted
in an anticipated structural performance from the
viewpoints of both statics and dynamics (Suzuki et al.
2005). Furthermore, the cable-stayed-suspension bridge
has been brought forward as possible schemes in almost
each large bridge project all over the world (Lin and
Chow 1991; Herzog 1996; Gimsing 1997; Firth and
Jensen 1999; Xiao and Xiang 1999a; Buckland 2003;
Tang 2007; Svensson 2008).

*Corresponding author. Email address: cscai@lsu.edu; Fax: +1 225 578 4945; Tel: +1 225 578 8898.
Associate Editor: Y. Xia.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1081

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges
Figure 1. Roebling’s structural system
Figure 2. Dichinger’s structural system
However, only a few publications about the structural
analysis of the cable-stayed-suspension bridge are found
in the literature. Cable-stayed-suspension bridges are
generally analyzed based on theories both of the cable-
stayed bridge and of the suspension bridge in the
previous studies. The finished dead load state was
obtained by dividing the bridge into two independent
structures, a cable-stayed one and a suspension one
(Xiao and Xiang 1999b). Zhang (2009) proposed a
synthesis algorithm by combining the analytical method
for the cable-shape finding with the finite element
method for the structural analysis. As an improvement,
the relation between the two structural parts are taken
into account by modifying the unstressed length of stay
cables and hangers according to the displacements of
girder and pylon induced by the suspension part
(Zhu 2009). A two-stage cycle method was also
proposed in which the optimization processes for the
two parts were performed one by one and then restart
from the beginning (Li 2010). In the FEM analysis,
elastic catenary cable elements were introduced to
model the main cables and stay cables. Therefore,
special FEM programs needed to be independently
developed (Karoumi 1999; Xiao and Xiang 1999b; Zhu
2009). Furthermore, a mathematical model was also
proposed to investigate the dynamic behavior of the
cable-stayed-suspension bridge (Konstantakopoulos
and Michaltsos 2010). However, a convenient method
with a normal FEM program for determining the
reasonable finished dead load state of the cable-stayed-
suspension bridge is not found, and parameters related
to the structural performance of this type of bridges have
not been studied.
This paper presents a new systematic analysis
strategy for cable-stayed-suspension bridges, including
a four-step approach for determining the reasonable
finished dead load state, a nonlinear traffic load analysis
strategy, and a load combination method. All cables are
modeled by normal spar elements with appropriate
initial strains, thus a normal FEM program without
1082
cable elements is also capable of doing all calculations.
An example of a 1400 m span cable-stayed-suspension
bridge is presented for illustration. This design is also
used as a basic scheme in the parameter study later, in
which three key geometric parameters: the suspension-
to-span ratio, the sag-to-span ratio, and the number of
crossing hangers are studied for their effects on the
bridge’s structural behavior. Suggested values of these
parameters are derived after the parametric study.
2. ANALYSIS STRATEGY
A systematic static analysis strategy for the cable-
stayed-suspension bridge is established next. More
specifically, a four-step approach for determining the
reasonable finished dead load state and a two-step
traffic load analysis strategy are discussed in detail.
Taking the finished dead load state as the initial state,
the nonlinear effect of each load in the service state is
analyzed independently. Then the superimposition
principle is adopted to obtain the load combination.
Without needing a special catenary cable element, the
analysis strategy can be realized using normal FEM
programs such as ANSYS in the present study.
2.1. Modeling Method
A cable-stayed-suspension bridge is simplified as a
three dimensional skeleton finite element model
(Figure 3). The girder and pylons are represented by
series of beam elements through the centroids of all
cross-sections. The cable system is modeled using spar
(truss) elements. Each stay cable is divided into several
elements to ensure that the cable sag effect can be taken
into account. Additional lateral beam elements with a
high rigidity but no mass are added to link the stay
cables, hangers, and girder. In the present study, the
ANSYS element types, Beam44 with tapered
unsymmetrical geometries, Beam4 with a uniform
symmetrical geometry and the tension-only spar
element Link10 are adopted to represent the girder and
Y
Z X
Figure 3. Finite element model (half of the bridge)
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013
Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao
the pylon, the additional lateral beam elements, and the
cables, respectively. Only geometrical nonlinear
analysis is performed, thus an elastic constitutive
relationship for each material can be safely employed.
Then both the outer and inner boundary conditions
are added. The nodal restrictions in the desired
directions are imposed at the bottom of the pylon, ends
of the girder, ends of the main cable, and points at the
auxiliary piers. In a fully floating deck system, the
girder and the pylon are free of linkage in the vertical
(Y) and the longitudinal (X) directions at the
intersection points, while are coupled in the lateral (Z)
direction to simulate the effect of the wind-resisting
bearing. If a semi-floating deck system is adopted, an
additional vertical linkage will be added to simulate the
bearing under the girder. Two nodes with the same
nodal coordinates are defined at each pylon’s top for the
main cable and the pylon, respectively. The two nodes
are coupled in all directions, except that the X
directional linkage must be eliminated in the dead load
state in order to simulate the free sliding of the cable
saddle.
2.2. Analysis Strategy for Reasonable Finished
Dead Load State
Changes in the cable tension forces can result in a
significant variation of geometry and internal forces of
both the girders and pylons in a cable-supported bridge.
The determination of the reasonable finished dead load
state, emphasizing on optimizing the cable tension
forces and seeking for the configuration of the cable
system, is critical in the process of structural analysis.
Considering that the cable-stayed-suspension bridge
consists of a cable-stayed part and a suspension part, a
four-step approach for determining the reasonable finished
dead load state is established based on the optimization
concepts of the cable-stayed bridge and the suspension
bridge.
Step 1: Optimization of tension forces of stay cables
and hangers
The minimum bending energy method, commonly used
in the optimization of cable-stayed bridges, is extended
here to optimize the tension forces of both the stay
cables and hangers. The tension forces of the stay cables
and hangers are defined as the design variables, of
which the initial values can be obtained using the
simply-supported beam method or the method of
continuous beam on rigid supports (Chen and Duan
2003). All un-used elements such as those for cables and
towers are deactivated in the analysis model at this
stage. Then the initial tension forces of stay cables and
hangers are directly imposed on the girder and pylon
along the directions of stay cables or hangers. The total
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013
bending energy of the girder is defined as the objective
function, and can be calculated as:
M 2 (s) n
li L 2 R 2
U=∫ ds ≈ ∑ ( Mi + Mi ) (1)
s 2 EI i =1
4 Ei I i
where U = bending energy of girder; M = bending
moment; E = elastic modulus; I = bending moment of
inertia; s = girder length; n = number of elements;
superscript L and R = left node and right node of
element, respectively; and subscript i = ith element.
Using the first order optimization method in ANSYS,
the reasonable tension forces of stay cables and hangers,
N, are finally obtained by optimizing their initial values,
and will be used for construction and design. In the
regions where the crossing hangers exist, it is assumed
that each pair of hanger and stay cable at the same point
on the girder has an equal vertical opponent of tension
force.
Step 2: Iterative calculation of tension force and
shape of main cable in main span
The main cable is usually assumed as a flexible cable
that is subjected to only tension forces. The proper
tension force and shape of the main cable are to be
found in the equilibrium state under the dead load,
namely the self-weight and the hanger tension forces
obtained at the end of step 1.
In this step, the tension force and shape of the main
cable are determined following the flowchart shown in
Figure 4 where the deactivated elements of the main
cable in the main span are activated. The initial main
cable shape in the main span is defined as the quadratic
parabola through the two ends at the pylon’s tops, and
the center point with the predefined cable sag.
Additional longitudinal nodal displacement constraints
on the two ends are added in this step to confine the
problem in only the main span. Noticing that
the horizontal component of the main cable force is the
same along the cable, the tension forces in different
elements can be calculated based on the cable inclining
angle, α, and the horizontal force component H, of
which the initial value can be estimated as:
H0 = qls2/(8hs) (2)
where H0 = initial value of horizontal component of the
main cable force; q = uniformly distributed dead load in
suspension part; ls = girder length in suspension part;
and hs = cable sag in suspension part.
Then two circles of iterative calculations are
performed. In the inner circle, the horizontal force
component H is adjusted to change the initial lengths
of elements through the corresponding initial strains.
1083
 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

Define the initial main cable shape

dead load and the tension force in the main cable will
in the main span as the parabola through be known.
the two ends and center point
Step 3: Iterative calculation of main cable shapes in
side spans
Add additional longitudinal disp. constraints
to both ends (at pylon's tops)
Under the dead load, the horizontal component of the
main cable force in the two side spans equals to that in
the main span due to the assumed free sliding of the
Calculate the initial horizontal force H0
cable saddle. Therefore, only the main cable shapes of
the two side spans needs to be determined without
Set the upper limit: H1 = 10H0,
and the lower limit: H2 = −8H0 needing to decide the cable force as done in the main
span. The problem is solved following the flowchart
Calculate the horizontal force: H = (H1 + H2)/2 shown in Figure 5 where the deactivated elements of the
main cable in the side spans are activated. The initial
Calculate the inclining angle (α) of each main cable shape in each side span is defined as a
element in the main cable, and the straight line, and the equilibrium main cable shape can
Ti =
corresponding axial force: Ti - H/ cos αai
H / cos i
be obtained in the same way as the outer circle in step 2.
Calculate the initial strain of each element
εi = Ti / (Ei Ai )

Define the initial main cable shape

Impose the self-weight and tensions of the in the side span as a straight line
hangers on the main cable

Nonlinear structural analysis Remove the additional longitudinal

disp. constraints added in step 2 (Fig. 8)

Y Vertical disp. of the center point

−5 Calculate the inclining angle (α) of each
| ∆center| <10
element in the main cable, and the
N Ti -=H/
corresponding axial force: Ti Hd cos αi
/ cosai

∆center > 0
Y N
H1 = H H2 = H Calculate the initial strain of each element
ε i = Ti / (Ei Ai )

N Add vertical disp. to Impose the self-weight and tensions of the

Max. vertical disp. of all nodes
−5 nodal coordinates
| ∆ j | max <10 hangers (if exist) on the main cable

Y
Output Hd and the main cable
Nonlinear structural analysis
shape in the main span

Figure 4. Calculation of horizontal force component and shape of

main cable in main span
Y Max. vertical disp. of all nodes
| ∆ j | max <10−5
If a smaller H were adopted, the cable sag would be
larger than the predefined value, and vice versa. N
Therefore, the exact horizontal force component under
the dead load, Hd, can be obtained by decreasing the In the side span, add vertical
disp. to the nodal coordinates
vertical displacement at the center point to be zero. In
the outer circle, the main cable shape is adjusted by
adding the vertical displacements to the nodal Output the main cable
coordinates. Consequently, when the calculation shape in the side span

converges, the nodal coordinates will exactly

represent the equilibrium main cable shape under the Figure 5. Calculation of main cable shape in side spans

1084 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao
It should be noted that only the nodal coordinates in the
side spans are adjusted.
In this step, the additional longitudinal displacements
constraints added in step 2 are removed to simulate the
free sliding of the cable saddle. In the beginning when
the constraints are removed, there are indeed nodal
longitudinal displacements at the pylon’s tops and the
horizontal force component is no longer equal to Hd due
to the nodal displacements. However, considering that
the nodal coordinates of main cable in the main span
will not be adjusted in this step, both the horizontal
force component and shape of the main cable in the
main span must remain the same as that at the end of
step 2, when the nodal displacements converge to zero.
Therefore, the longitudinal nodal displacements at the
pylon’s tops will eventually converge to zero, though
the free sliding is still available.
Step 4: Calculation of appropriate initial strains of
stay cables and hangers
A set of appropriate initial strains of the stay cables and
hangers must be found in order to realize the optimized
tension forces N obtained at the end of step 1 after the
elements representing the stay cables and hangers are
activated. The trial values of the appropriate initial strains
are calculated using the desired forces determined in step 1,
where the tension forces were calculated along the
directions of the stay cables and hangers, and their self-
weight was omitted. The analysis flowchart is shown in
Fig. 6, where each stay cable or hanger is modeled with
only one element. Once the trial values of the appropriate
initial strains are applied to the activated cable elements,
due to the displacement of the structure, the resulted cable
tension forces will deviate from the desired cable tension
Calculate the initial strain of each stay cable and hanger
from the reasonable tension force N
ε i, k = Ni / (Ei Ai ) (k = 0)
k th nonlinear structural analysis
Max. tension error in all cables
|(Ni,k − Ni)/Ni |max <10−5
Adjust the initial strain of each cable in FE model
εi,k = εi,k-1 + (Ni,k − Ni) / (Ei Ai)
Output the appropriate initial strains, εi,
of the stay cables and hangers
Figure 6. Calculation of initial strains of stay cables and hangers
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013
forces N determined in step 1. Therefore, the initial strains
need to be iteratively calculated until the desired cable
tension forces are reached. Thus, the appropriate initial
strains, εi, are found.
Then, the multi-element cable system (Abdel-Ghaffar
and Khalifa 1991), in which every individual stay cable
is discretized into a desired number of spar elements, is
introduced in the FE model. The same initial strain, εi,
from the calculation in Figure 6 is applied to all elements
along the same stay cable, and the self-weight of the stay
cables and hangers is added. The next nonlinear
structural analysis exhibits the sags of stay cables, thus
the cable sag effect is taken into account. Previous
studies suggested that by discretizing each stay cable into
eight elements, the multi-element cable system could
reach a rather high accuracy compared with the accurate
catenary cable theory. The concerned circumstance was
in stay cables with a horizontal projection length of not
more than 800 m and with a normal stress between 400
MPa and 600 MPa. As a result, the maximum
comparative error in cable forces is only 0.3% with a
little larger error of 4.5% in cable shapes.
2.3. Traffic Load Analysis
A nonlinear traffic load analysis approach is proposed as
shown in Figures 7 and 8, in which several special
ANSYS functions are employed to reduce calculation
effort and save storage space. Taking the reasonable
finished dead load state as the initial structural state, the
traffic load effect is calculated by subtracting the dead
load effect from the total load effect. The influence line is
calculated by moving a unit concentrated load from one
end of the girder to the other. For the traffic load pattern
consisting of only one concentrated load PK and
arbitrarily imposed uniformly distributed load qK (Figure 9),
the traffic load effect in a typical linear analysis can be
calculated with the maximum influence line value and the
area of the influence line region with positive values.
Nevertheless, in the present study, the influence line is
only used to determine the critical distribution of the
traffic load. For the calculation of the maximum value, PK
is imposed at the point with the maximum influence line
value, while qK is imposed all over the regions where the
influence line values are positive. Then the minimum
(maximum negative) value can be obtained in the similar
way. The nonlinear effect of the traffic load itself can thus
be taken into account in the nonlinear structural analysis,
and the results are more accurate.
2.4. Analyses of Other Loads and Load
Combination
In a nonlinear structural analysis, a load combination
encounters a theoretical obstacle. Each load changes
1085
 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges
Time step 1:
Analysis of the resonable finished dead load state
Loop for all nodes of the girder ( j = 1, 2, ... , n)
R estart the calculation in a new time step (time step = j + 1):
R E SUME $ANTYPE ,,R E ST
Control of the results files writing:
R E SCONTR OL,,NONE
(add the results of time step j +1 to the end)
5
Impose a concentrated load (10 N)
on the i th node of the girder
Nonlinear structural analysis
Loop for all concerned effects
(displacements, internal forces, and reaction forces)
R etrieve effects in all time steps with
NSOL/E SOL/R SOL
Influence line values =
Effect Step j +1 – Effect Step 1 (j = 1, 2, ... , n)
Figure 7. Calculation of influence line values
the structural configuration, thus the nonlinear
interactions between different loads are produced. The
superimposition principle used in a linear load
combination would be no longer available.
Theoretically speaking, all loads should be imposed
on the structure simultaneously to calculate the total
nonlinear effect. However, in this case, the critical
distribution of loads would be too complicated to be
determined.
The following analysis strategy is adopted in the
present study to avoid this issue. The finished dead
load state is used as the initial structural state to
calculate the nonlinear effect increment of each load.
The superimposition principle is still used to add up
the finished dead load state and all effect increments.
Considering that the dead load is responsible for the
major proportion of the total load combination, this
approach would be acceptable in engineering
practice.
3. CASE STUDY
The design of a 1400 m span cable-stayed-suspension
bridge is introduced in this section, and its structural
safety is verified with the analysis strategy discussed
1086
Time step 1:
Analysis of the reasonable finished dead load state
Loop for all concerned effects
(displacements, internal forces, and reaction forces)
R estart the calculation as time step 2:
R E SUME $ANTYPE ,,R E ST,1
Control of the results files writing
R E SCONTR OL,,ALL,LAST
(replace the results of time step 2 with the present results)
Impose Pk on the point with the maximum
influence line value
Impose qk on the girder all over the regions
where the influence line values are positive
Nonlinear structural analysis
R etrieve effects in the two time steps with
NSOL/E SOL/R SOL
Live load effect =
Effect Step 2 – Effect Step 1
Figure 8. Calculation of traffic load effects
PK
qK
Figure 9. Traffic load pattern
in the former sections. This bridge scheme will also be
used as a reference model for the parametric study
later.
3.1. Outline of Design
Figure 10 shows the outline of the 1400 m span cable-
stayed-suspension bridge. The middle part with a length
of 416 m is suspended to the main cables, and the other
parts are cable-stayed. The total length of the cable-
stayed parts in the main span, 984 m, is near the present
record of the cable-stayed bridge in the world.
Therefore, the currently available techniques of the
cable-stayed bridge can be safely employed. The
Chinese Q345qD steel is adopted for the streamlined
steel box girder, with an allowable stress of 183 MPa
and 280 MPa under normal static load and under wind
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013
Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

2304

452 492 416 492 452

24(4 × 6) 380(19 × 20) 380(19 × 20) 320(20 × 16) 320(20 × 16) 380(19 × 20) 380(19 × 20) 24(4 × 6)

48(3 × 16) Y 48(3 × 16)

132 40 80 140 60 80 40 580 580 40 80 60 140 80 40 132

A C A B C C B A A B C C B A C A

(a) Span arrangement

11 b-b
4.5 31.4 4.5

1.5
2.3

a-a
a a lc
11.3
11.6

1.5
lc
25 × 2

88

a-a 1.2
11

20
ld
ld
4.5
306

10 e-e
136.7

c-c d-d 13
7

1.5~3
9.4
1.5~3
1.5~3

le
10.5~12
0.8 0.8 0.8
9~12
9~12

le 0.8 0.8
70

20 b b
10 41.5 10
7.3 9.7
13.3

(b) Pylon

1.3 38.4/2 38.4/2 1.3

2.0% 2.0%

z
4.5

9 23 9
41

(c) Cross-section of girder

Figure 10. 1400 m cable-stayed-suspension bridge (unit: m)

load, respectively. The portal-type pylons are made of cables, stay cables and hangers, of which the cross-
Chinese C60 concrete, with a nominal allowable stress sectional areas and material properties are shown in
of 19.25 MPa. The key cross-sectional properties are Figure 11 and Table 2. Four vertical hangers crossing
listed in Table 1. The cable system consists of the main with the stay cables are installed in each connection area

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1087

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

Table 1. Cross-sectional properties The structural safety of the bridge is verified with a
comprehensive structural analysis. All load cases are
Cross section A (m2) Iz (m4) Iy (m4) J (m4)
analyzed in AYSYS by using an appropriate APDL
Girder - Type A 1.703 5.824 220.844 21.809 programming, including the traffic load and also the
Girder - Type B 1.863 6.445 242.195 23.539
impact effect with eight traffic lanes, static wind load
Girder - Type C 1.982 7.061 248.008 25.412
Pylon - Top (per column) 27.691 67.026 379.299 199.883 with a design wind speed Vs10 up to 40.5 m/s, ± 25°C
Pylon - Bottom (per column) 72.191 1053.589 3617.281 2718.328 temperature variation of the whole structure, ± 15°C
Main cable (single) 0.24 – – –

8.0 × 104

Bending moment (kN·m)

6.0 × 104
0.013 Stay cables
4.0 × 104
Cross-sectional area (m2)

0.012 Hangers
0.011 2.0 × 104
0.010 0.0
0.009 −2.0 × 104
0.008
−4.0 × 104
0.007
0.006 −6.0 × 104
−500 −400 −300 −200 −100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 −8.0 × 104
−400 −200 0 200 400 600
Bridge end Pylon Center
Bridge end Pylon Bridge center
(a) Bending moment in girder
Figure 11. Cross-sectional areas of stay cables and hangers

2.0 × 104
0.0
Table 2. Strength of cable wires
−2.0 × 104
Normal force (kN)

−4.0 × 104
Allowable −6.0 × 104
stress −8.0 × 104
Tensile Allowable amplitude −1.0 × 105
strength Safety stress under traffic −1.2 × 105
−1.4 × 105
(MPa) factor (MPa) load (MPa)
−1.6 × 105
Main cables 1670 2.5 668 – −400 −200 0 200 400 600
Bridge end Pylon Bridge center
Stay cables 1770 2.5 708 250
Hangers 1770 4.0 440 250 (b) Normal force in girder

20
Top side
0 Bottom side
between the cable-stayed parts and suspension part in −20
Stress (MPa)

order to mitigate the fatigue problem (Xiao and Xiang −40

1999b). These hangers are called crossing hangers as −60

−80
stated before.
−100
−120
3.2. Structural Analysis and Safety Verification −400 −200 0 200 400 600
The four-step analysis strategy for determining the Bridge end Pylon Bridge center

reasonable finished dead load state as discussed earlier (c) Stress in girder

is realized in ANSYS by using an appropriate APDL

6000
programming. Results are shown in Figure 12. The
5000
bending moments in the girder and the pylon are within
Tension force (kN)

appropriate ranges, and the stresses of the two sides of 4000

the girder and the pylon are similar to each other. It 3000

indicates that the distribution of the tension forces in the 2000 Stay cables
Hangers
cable system is reasonable. The compression force is 1000
accumulated in the girder from both ends of cable- 0
−400 −200 0 200 400 600
stayed part toward the pylon, while small tension force
Bridge end Pylon Bridge center
is found in the suspension part. The maximum
(d) Tension forces in stay cables and hangers
compressive stresses in the girder and the pylon are
99.6 MPa and 11.2 MPa, respectively. Figure 12. (Continued)

1088 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

4 × 105 80 Top side: Max. Min.

Bending moment (kN・m)

Bottom side: Max. Min.
40
3 × 105

Stress (MPa)
0
−40
2 × 105
−80
1 × 105 −120
−160
0 −200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 −400 −200 0 200 400 600
Bottom Top
Bridge end Pylon Bridge center
(e) Bending moment in pylon
(a) Girder

−2
700
−4
Stress (MPa)

600

Stress (MPa)
−6 Main span side
Side span side 500
−8
400
−10 Stay cables
300 Hangers
−12 200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
100
Bottom Top
−400 −200 0 200 400 600
(f) Stress in pylon Pylon
Bridge end Bridge center
Figure 12. Reasonable finished dead load state (b) Stay cables and hangers

0
temperature difference between the cable system and −2 Main span side: Max. Min.
Side span side: Max. Min.
girder, and ±5°C temperature difference over the −4
Stress (MPa)

thickness of the pylon (CCCCHC 2004a; CMCCRDI −6

−8
2007). The stress envelopes of the combined loads are −10
shown in Fig. 13. In the girder, the maximum −12
compressive stress, 185.0 MPa, occurs at the auxiliary −14
−16
pier in the side span. The maximum tensile stress, 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
77.8 MPa, is found at the 1/4 point in the suspension part. Bottom Top
The maximum tensile stresses of the stay cables are (c) Pylon
mostly in the range of 600 MPa to 700 MPa while that of
the hangers is between 400 MPa and 410 MPa. No cable 600
slack is detected. The pylons are all in compression with 550
the maximum nominal compressive stress of
Stress (MPa)

approximately 15.0 MPa. The maximum stress in the 500

main cable is 592 MPa, which is found in the side span 450
and at the top of the pylon. The safety of the main cable Max.
400 Min.
is thereby ensured.
The traffic load effects are shown in Figure 14. The 350
−400 −200 0 200 400 600
maximum upward and downward displacements of girder Pylon
Bridge end Bridge center
are not found at the bridge center, thus the characteristic
(d) Main cable
similar to that of suspension bridges is exhibited. The
maximum displacement amplitude is calculated as 2.329 Figure 13. Stress envelops of combined loads
m, which is much less than the allowable value, 3.5 m, as
1/400 of the main span length (CMCCRDI 2007). The
stress amplitudes in the stay cables and hangers are lower 3.3. Static Wind Load Effects
than the allowable value, 250 MPa. It can also be noticed The effects of both the lateral and longitudinal static
that the maximum stress amplitude in the hangers occurs wind loads are examined in accordance with the design
in the outmost hanger [Figure 14(b)], thus the fatigue code (CCCCHC 2004b). Under the lateral static wind
problem might occur and will be discussed later. load, the maximum lateral displacement, 4.71 m, occurs

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1089

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

0.5 pylon can be reduced greatly with the earth-anchored

Girder displacement (m)

0.0
main cables. In the present study, results show that the
longitudinal displacements at the pylon’s top and bridge
−0.5
end are only 0.279 m and 0.407 m, respectively. No
−1.0 Upward displacement-restricting device is needed.
Downward
−1.5
4. PARAMETRIC STUDY
−2.0 Three key geometric parameters for cable-stayed-
−400 −200 0 200 400 600
Bridge end Pylon Bridge center
suspension bridges, the suspension-to-span ratio, the
(a) E nvelop of girder displacement
sag-to-span ratio of the suspension part, and the number
of crossing hangers are studied with respect to the
200
Stress amplitude (MPa)

Outmost hanger bridge’s structural performance. Suggested values for

175
150
125
100
75
Stay cables
Hangers
50
25
−400 −200
Bridge end
(b) Stress amplitudes in stay cables and hangers
Figure 14. Traffic load effects
at the bridge center, while the maximum compressive
stress, 232 MPa, occurs nearby the pylon (Figure 15). It
can be safely predicted that the stress in the girder near
the pylon would be one of the critical design conditions
if the span kept increasing (Nagai et al. 2004). Under the
longitudinal wind load, a longitudinal displacement-
restricting device must be installed between the girder
and the pylon in a typical long span cable-stayed bridge.
Otherwise, a huge wind load on the girder and stay
cables would be transferred to the top part of the pylon,
and an extremely large bending moment would be
developed in the pylon (Ito 1996; Xu 2003; Miao et al.
2005). In comparison, in the case of a cable-stayed-
suspension bridge, the longitudinal displacement of the
these parameters are derived from this parametric study.
4.1. Suspension-to-Span Ratio
The suspension-to-span ratio, the ratio of the length of
the suspension part to the main span length, should be
determined at the very beginning of a design with a
0 200 400 600 given main span length. The length of the suspension
Pylon Bridge center
part is increased from 0 m to 1400 m by an interval of
about 200 m to 300 m, thus the ratio is increased by an
interval of nearly 0.15 (Table 3).
The girder keeps the design in the reference model
discussed in section 3.1 except that it is lengthened or
shortened together with the side spans. The stay cables
are accordingly added or deleted. Therefore, the
influence of girder properties to the effect of
suspension-to-span ratio is avoided. Furthermore, in this
section, no auxiliary pier is added in the side spans of all
the seven FE models in order to avoid the effect of the
number and location of the auxiliary piers. Theoretically
speaking, auxiliary piers can enhance the structural
rigidity, so that the results of the FE model with a 416 m
suspension part in this section are always larger than the
corresponding ones in section 3.
Analyses in this section indicate that with a main
span length of 1400 m, the length of the suspension part
should be within 600 m to 800 m for the favor of

100

50

0
Stress (MPa)

−50

−100
Top-windward corner
−150
Top-leeward corner

−200 Bottom-windward corner

Bottom-leeward corner
−250
−400 −200 0 200 400 600
Bridge end Pylon Bridge center

Figure 15. Stresses at four corners of girder in the combination of dead load and lateral static wind load

1090 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

Table 3. Parameters with the change of suspension-to-span ratio

In terms of In terms of
suspension part main span Cross-
Length of Suspension- Side span Pylon Sag-to- Sag-to- sectional
suspension to-span length* height span span area of single
part ratio (m) (m) Sag (m) Ratio Sag (m) Ratio main cable (m2)
0(cable-stayed
bridge) 0.000 644 335** – – – – –
192 0.137 564 320** 11.703 1/16.406 239.333 1/5.850 0.205
416 0.297 452 306 31.948 1/13.022 225.333 1/6.213 0.240
608 0.434 344 306 55.006 1/11.053 225.333 1/6.213 0.275
800 0.571 244 306 84.041 1/9.519 225.333 1/6.213 0.310
1080 0.771 104 306 139.195 1/7.759 225.333 1/6.213 0.363
1400(suspension
bridge) 1.000 0 306 225.333 1/6.213 225.333 1/6.213 0.415

Notes: a. The side span length (*) is changed in accordance with the cable-stayed part length in the main span.
b. The pylon height (**) is increased in order to keep the layout of the stay cables.

rigidities in all three dimensions. The corresponding
suspension-to-span ratio is 0.4 to 0.6.
It should be noted that the sag-to-span ratio can be
calculated based on either the suspension part or the
entire main span, resulting in great differences as
compared in both Table 3 and Table 4. Without the
tension forces of hangers, the main cable shape in the
cable-stayed part is significantly different from that in
the suspension part. Therefore, the sag-to-span ratio is
defined in terms of the suspension part hereafter in the
present study.
4.1.1. Finished dead load state
When the bridge changes from a pure cable-stayed bridge
(with the length of suspension part being zero) to a pure
suspension bridge (with the length of suspension part
being 1400 m), the finished dead load state changes
correspondingly (Figure 16). The maximum compression
force in the girder near the pylon decreases to zero while
the tension forces in both the main cable and anchorage
increase from zero to the maximum. This shows clearly
the process that the compression forces in the cable-
stayed part are gradually changed into the tension forces
in the suspension part.
4.1.2. Traffic load effects
The traffic load effects are compared in Figure 17. The
maximum vertical rigidity occurs when the suspension-
to-span ratio is 0.434. The minimum value of the
maximum vertical displacement of the girder is found at the
point of about 600 m, 30% to 50% lower than that with 0
m or 1400 m length of suspension part [Figure 17(a)].
With the increase of the length of suspension part from 0,
the shorter vertical hangers take the places of longer stay
cables which suffer the sag effect, and the increasing
“gravity rigidity” of main cable reduces the displacement.
However, with the longer and longer hangers replacing
the shorter and shorter stay cables as the length of
suspension part increases, the rigidity variation
eventually turns to the opposite trend. It indicates that
there must be a most favorable suspension-to-span ratio
for the vertical rigidity.

Table 4. Parameters with the change of pylon height

Height In terms of suspension part In terms of main span

Pylon height Total above the Sag-to-span Sag-to-span
change (m) height (m) girder (m) Sag (m) Ratio Sag (m) Ratio
−50 256 186 24.827 1/16.756 (0.0597) 175.333 1/7.985
−25 281 211 28.867 1/14.411 (0.0694) 200.333 1/6.988
0 306 236 31.948 1/13.021 (0.0768) 225.333 1/6.213
25 331 261 35.436 1/11.739 (0.0852) 250.333 1/5.593
50 356 286 37.982 1/10.953 (0.0913) 275.333 1/5.085

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1091

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

Main span- at pylon's top

0 Side span- at pylon's top
2.5 × 105
Bridge center
Compression force (kN)

−1 × 105 2.0 × 105

Tension force (kN)

1.5 × 105
−2 × 105

1.0 × 105
−3 × 105
5.0 × 104

−4 × 105 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m) Length of suspension part (m)
(a) Max. compression force in girder (b) Tension force in main cable

2.0 × 105 Longitudinal force

Vertical force
Anchoring force (kN)

1.5 × 105

1.0 × 105

5.0 × 104

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m)
(c) Anchoring force

Figure 16. Finished dead load state

Owing to the increasing cross-sectional area of the trend is found in the maximum tensile stress and the
earth-anchored main cable (Table 3) as the length of maximum compressive stress in the girder and the pylon,
suspension part increases, the longitudinal displacement and the girder and pylon need to be strengthened with a no
of pylon, and the bending moments in the girder and longer than 200 m suspension part [Figures 18(b) and (c)].
pylon decrease by over 65% [Figures 17(b) to (d)]. The Under the longitudinal static wind load, similar to
maximum normal force also decreases from that of a that under the traffic load, the longitudinal displacement
1400 m cable-stayed bridge to about zero [Figure 17(e)]. at the pylon’s top decreases with the increased cross-
The cost is that the normal force in the main cable and sectional area of the main cables by over 90%
the anchoring force increases from zero to that of a [Figure 19(a)] as the length of suspension part increases
1400 m suspension bridge [Figure 17(f) and (g)]. from 0 m to 1400 m. The maximum compressive stress
in the pylon also decreases greatly [Figure 19(b)]. The
4.1.3. Static wind load effects longitudinal displacement of girder at the bridge end
The lateral rigidity of cable-stayed-suspension bridges decreases at first because the “floating” girder is linked
depends mainly on the restriction from the stay cables and to the pylon with a decreasing displacement. However,
the hangers linked to the main cable. As the longitudinal owing to an insufficient linkage with an over 800 m
rigidity discussed in section 4.1.2, the lateral rigidity also length of suspension part, the displacement turns to
increases first, then decreases. Under the lateral static increase as the length of suspension part increases. The
wind load, the lateral displacement at the bridge center minimum value at about 800 m is more than 60% lower
reaches its minimum value with an 800 m length of than that at 0 m or 1400 m [Figure 19(a)]. With a zero
suspension part, over 40% lower than that of 0 m or suspension part, the longitudinal displacements at the
1400 m length of suspension part [Figure 18(a)]. The same bridge end and the pylon’s top and the maximum

1092 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

compressive stress in the pylon are much larger than for both the lateral and longitudinal rigidities under the
those with a non-zero suspension part, so that the wind load.
necessity of the displacement-restricting device in a
pure cable-stayed bridge mentioned in section 3.3 is 4.2. Sag-to-Span Ratio
here verified. The sag-to-span ratio in the main span is the most
These two aspects show that there is a most favorable important geometric parameter for suspension bridges
suspension-to-span ratio, about 0.4 to 0.6 in this study, with a given main span length. Its effect on the

4
1.6
3
Toward main span
Vertical displacement (m)

2 1.2
Toward side span

Logitudinal disp. (m)

1 0.8
0 Upward
0.4
−1 Downward
−2 0.0
−3 −0.4
−4
−0.8
−5
−6 −1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m) Length of suspension part (m)
(a) Vertical disp. at bridge center (b) Longitudinal disp. at pylon top

5.00 × 105 Top side in tension 3×106

Bottom side in tension Main span side in tension
Bending moment (kN・m)

2×106
Bending moment (kN・m)

5
Side span side in tension
2.50 × 10
1×106

0
0.0
6
−1×10

−2.50 × 105 −2×106

−3×106
5
−5.00 × 10 −4×106
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m) Length of suspension part (m)
(c) Max. bending moment in girder (d) Max. bending moment in pylon

4.0×104 Tension force 4×104

Compression force
Tension force
2.0×104 3×104 Compression force
Normal force (kN)

Normal force (kN)

0.0 2×104

−2.0×104 1×104

4
−4.0×10 0

−6.0×104 −1×104
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m) Length of suspension part (m)
(e) Max. normal force in girder (f) Normal force in main cable at pylon top

Figure 17. (Continued)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1093

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

3.0 × 104 Longitudinal force: Max. Min.

Vertical force: Max. Min.
2.5 × 104

2.0 × 104

Anchoring force (kN)

1.5 × 104

1.0 × 104

5.0 × 103

0.0

−5.0 × 103

−1.0 × 104
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m)
(g) Anchoring force in anchorage

Figure 17. Traffic load effects

8 200

100
7 Tensile stress at bridge center
0
Compressive stress near pylon
Lateral disp. (m)

Stress (MPa)

−100
6
−200

−300
5
−400

4 −500
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m) Length of suspension part (m)

(a) Lateral disp. at bridge center (b) Max. stress in girder

10

0
Stress (MPa)

Tensile stress
−5
Compressive stress
−10

−15

−20

−25
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Length of suspension part (m)
(c) Max. stress in pylon

Figure 18. Load conbination of the dead load and the lateral wind load

1094 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

2.4
−1.2 × 105
Pylon's top
2.0
Bridge end −1.4 × 105

Compresion force (kN)

Longitudinal disp. (m)

1.6
−1.6 × 105

1.2
−1.8 × 105
0.8
−2.0 × 105
0.4
−2.2 × 105
0.0 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Sag-to-span ratio
Length of suspension part (m)
(a) Max. compression force in girder
(a) Longitudinal disp.
1.6 × 105
Main span - pylon's top
−10
Side span - pylon's top
Bridge center
−12 1.4 × 105

Tension force (kN)

−14
1.2 × 105
Stress (MPa)

−16
1.0 × 105
−18

−20 8.0 × 104

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio
−22
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 (b) Tension force in main cable
Length of suspension part (m)
1.50 × 105
(b) Max. Compressive stress in pylon
Longitudinal force
Figure 19. Load conbination of dead load and longitudinal wind load 1.25 × 105 Vertical force
Anchoring force (kN)

structural behavior of cable-stayed-suspension bridges 1.00 × 105

is investigated in this section. The pylon height is

changed by ±25 m and ±50 m. Therefore, the sag-to- 7.50 × 104

span ratio is changed from 1/16.8 to 1/11.0 in the

suspension part (Table 4). The results as discussed later 5.00 × 104
show that a larger sag-to-span ratio with a higher pylon
is recommended for lower internal forces in the girder 2.50 × 104
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
and the cable system under both the dead load and
Sag-to-span ratio
traffic load. However, the lateral and longitudinal
(c) Anchoring force in anchorage
rigidities decrease correspondingly, and the pylon
should be strengthened to resist the lateral wind load. Figure 20. Finished dead load state

4.2.1. Finished dead load state

When the sag-to-span ratio increases from 1/16.8 to
1/11.0, the compression force in the girder, the tension
force in the main cable, and the longitudinal anchoring
force in the anchorage decrease drastically by 30% to
40% (Figure 20) due to the increase of the inclining
angles of the stay cables and main cables. It results in
significant benefits to the structural design.
The vertical anchoring force changes little as shown
in Figure 20(c) as the sag-to-span ratio increases, which
can be explained below. In the finished dead load state,

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1095

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

Therefore, the vertical anchoring force changes little,

Hd Hd
due to that Vs remains constantly, and the value of
θs θm tanθs /tan θm changes only a little with the sag-to-span
Vs Vm
ratio (in terms of the pylon height).

4.2.2. Traffic load effects

When the sag-to-span ratio increases from 1/16.8 to
Figure 21. Cable forces at pylon’s top
1/11.0, the maximum bending moment in the girder
under the traffic load hardly changes [Figure 22(a)].
there is an equal horizontal force component Hd for the However, the maximum normal force decreases by
main cable in the main span and side span at the pylon’s 35% with the increase of the inclining angles of the
top, as shown in Figure 21. Therefore: stay cables [Figure 22(b)]. Considering that the
compression force in the finished dead load state also
Vs = Vm tanθs /tan θm (3)
decreases by over 30% [Figure 20(a)], the total
where: Vs and Vm = vertical components of the main compression force definitely reduces by over 30%,
cable force in the side span and main span, respectively; thus the static stability of the girder is enhanced
and θs and θm = corresponding inclining angles, remarkably.
respectively. If the self-weight of the cable system were Similar to that in the finished dead load state, both the
ignored, Vs and Vm would be equal to the vertical maximum tension forces and amplitudes of normal
anchoring force, and half of the total weight of forces in the cable system and anchorage decrease by
suspension part in the main span, respectively. over 20% when the sag-to-span ratio increases from

3 × 105 2 × 104
Bending moment (kN • m)

2 × 105 1 × 104
Normal force (kN)

0
1 × 105
Tension force
Top side in tension −1 × 104
0 Compression force
Bottom side in tension −2 × 104
−1 × 105
−3 × 104
−2 × 105 −4 × 104

−3 × 105 −5 × 104
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio Sag-to-span ratio
(a) Max. bending moment in girder (b) Max. normal force in girder

2.0 × 103
2.0 × 104

1.5 × 103
1.5 × 104
Normal force (kN)

Normal force (kN)

1.0 × 103
Tension force
Tension force 1.0 × 104
Compression force
5.0 × 102
Compression force
5.0 × 103
0.0

0.0
−5.0 × 102

−1.0 × 103 −5.0 × 103

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio Sag-to-span ratio
(c) Max. normal force in stay cables (d) Normal force in main cable at pylon top

Figure 22. (Continued)

1096 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

2.0 × 104
1.0 × 103
1.6 × 104
9.0 × 102
Anchoring force (kN)

Normal force (kN)

1.2 × 104
6.0 × 102

8.0 × 103 3.0 × 102

Tension force
Compression force
Longitudinal force: Max. Min.
4.0 × 103 0.0
Vertical force: Max. Min.

0.0 −3.0 × 102

−4.0 × 103 −6.0 × 102

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio Sag-to-span ratio
(e) Anchoring force in anchorage (f) Max. normal force in hangers

3.0×105
0.4

Bending moment (kN • m)

0.0
0.3
Logitudinal disp. (m)

Main span side in tension

0.2 −3.0×105
Side span side in tension

0.1
Toward main span −6.0×105
Toward main span

0.0 −9.0×105

−0.1 −1.2×106
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio Sag-to-span ratio
(g) Longitudinal disp. at pylon top (h) Max. bending moment in pylon

0.5

Upward
0.0
Vertical displacement (m)

Downward
−0.5

−1.0

−1.5

−2.0

−2.5
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio
(i) Vertical disp. at bridge center

Figure 22. Traffic load effects

1/16.8 to 1/11.0 [Figures 22 (c) to (f)]. The maximum 36%. Therefore, increasing the sag-to-span ratio is
normal force always occurs in the outmost hanger as beneficial to improve the fatigue problem.
shown in Figure 14(b). The maximum stress amplitude Though the pylon height increases together with the sag-
of the hangers calculated from Figure 22(f) decreases by to-span ratio, the longitudinal tension forces in the stay

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1097

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

cables and main cable decrease at the same time [Figures
22(c) and (d)]. The comprehensive effect shows that the
longitudinal displacement at the pylon’s top only slightly
increases [Figure 22(g)], and that the bending moment in
the pylon decreases by about 40% [Figure 22(h)].
An increase of the sag-to-span ratio, in terms of the
pylon height, has opposite effects on the rigidity of a cable-
stayed bridge and a suspension bridge. In a cable-stayed
bridge, an increase in the pylon height can increase the
inclining angles of stay cables, thus the vertical rigidity is
enhanced. However, for the suspension bridge, the vertical
rigidity originates mainly from the gravity rigidity of main
cable. An increase in the pylon height can only decrease the
tension force in the main cable and the consequent vertical
rigidity. The two tendencies compete with each other in the
case of a cable-stayed-suspension bridge. In the present
study, the former trend outweighs the latter one because the
cable-stayed part is in the majority. The results show that
the downward vertical displacement at the bridge center
decreases by about 25% [Figure 22(i)].
In general, increasing the sag-to-span ratio is
beneficial to decrease the traffic load effects.
4.2.3. Static wind load effects
Figure 23 presents the lateral static wind load effects.
With the sag-to-span ratio increasing from 1/16.8 to
1/11.0, the nominal stresses in the pylon increase by
about 10 MPa [Figure 23(a)], due to the increasing pylon
height and the total lateral wind load. Therefore, the
pylon must be strengthened. On the other hand, the lateral
displacement at the bridge center is nearly doubled
[Figure 23(b)]. It means that the lateral rigidity decreases
by nearly 50%, and the compressive stress in the girder
near the pylon increases drastically. However, because

10 7.0

5
6.5
Lateral displacement (m)

0
6.0
−5
Stress (MPa)

Tensile stress
5.5
−10 Compressive stress
5.0
−15

−20 4.5

−25 4.0

−30 3.5
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio Sag-to-span ratio
(a) Max. stress in pylon (b) Lateral disp. at bridge center

150

100

50
Stress (MPa)

0
Tensile stress at bridge center
−50
Compressive stress near pylon
−100

−150

−200

−250
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Sag-to-span ratio
(c) Max. stress in grider

Figure 23. Load conbination of the dead load and the lateral wind load

1098 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao

the compression force under the dead load decreases by
over 40% [Figure 20(a)], the total compressive stress
decreases by about 15% [Figure 23(c)].
Under the longitudinal static wind load, with the
increase of sag-to-span ratio, the displacements of pylon
and girder are almost tripled, indicating that the
longitudinal rigidity decreases remarkably [Figure 24(a)].
Although the pylon height and the total longitudinal wind
load increase, the total compressive stress in the combined
loads is still below the allowable stress, 19.25 MPa
[Figure 24(b)], and no tensile stress is found.
In general, an increase of sag-to-span ratio decreases
both the lateral and longitudinal rigidities, and the pylon
should be strengthened to resist the lateral wind load.
4.3. Number of Crossing Hangers
The cable-stayed-suspension bridge is accused of the
fatigue problem in the connection area between the
cable-stayed part and the suspension part, especially in
the outmost hanger, because the different load-bearing
mechanisms and rigidities of the two parts result in great
0.7
Pylon's top
0.6
Bridge end
Displacement (m)
varying stresses under the traffic load (Xiao and Xiang
1999b). Furthermore, it is suggested that adding
crossing hangers is an effective measure to solve or
improve the fatigue problem.
To investigate the effect and efficiency of the
crossing hangers on the fatigue problem, the number of
such crossing hangers is changed from zero to six, by
adding additional hangers with the same cross-sectional
area. The stresses of the hangers, stay cables, and girder
near the connection area under the traffic load are
examined in Figure 25.
The outmost hanger, with the stress amplitude of
nearly 200 MPa, is the most vulnerable hanger for the
fatigue problem. The stress amplitude drops from
196 MPa to 166 MPa, or by 15.3%, when the number
of crossing hangers increases from zero to six
[Figure 25(a)]. A similar change is observed in the
first stay cable not crossing with the hangers. The
stress amplitude of the first stay cable drops from
200 MPa to 152 MPa, or by 24.0% [Figure 25(b)]. It
has also been noticed that the increase of the number of
crossing hangers can efficiently decrease the stress
amplitude of girder in the adjacent area [Figure 25(c)],
200
Outmost hanger 0

0.5 1
Stress amplitude (MPa)

2
0.4 150 3
4
0.3 5
100 6
0.2

0.1 50

0.0
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0
Sag-to-span ratio 400 440 480 520 560
Location of hangers
(a) Longitudinal displacement
(a) Hangers
−11
F irst stay cable not
Compressive stress (MPa)

−12 crossing with hangers

200 0
1
Stress amplitude (MPa)

−13 2
180 3
4
−14 5
160 6
−15
140
−16
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 120
Pylon height variation (m) 320 360 400 440 480
(b) Max. compressive stress in pylon Location of stay cables
(b) Stay cables
Figure 24. Load conbination of dead load and longitudinal wind
load Figure 25. (Continued)

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013 1099

 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

100 0 (2) A 1400 m span cable-stayed-suspension bridge

Stress amplitude (MPa)
1 using currently available materials can meet all
2
90
3 design codes requirements. The advantages of this
4 bridge type are found in a higher stability owing to
80 5
6 a lower compression force in the girder, and that
70 no longitudinal displacement-restricting device
between the girder and the pylon is needed.
60 (3) For the studied 1400 m span cable-stayed-
50
suspension bridge, a suspension-to-span ratio of
360 400 440 480 520 0.4 to 0.6 is recommended to increase the
Location of the girder rigidities in all three dimensions. It indicates that
(c) Top side of girder cable-stayed-suspension bridges have higher
rigidities than both cable-stayed bridges and
120 0
suspension bridges with the same main span
1 lengths.
Stress amplitude (MPa)

110
100
90
80
70
360 400 440
Location of the girder
(d) Bottom side of girder
Figure 25. Stress amplitudes under traffic load
though the fatigue problem of girder is not as serious
as that of the hangers or stay cables. In general, the
increase of the number of crossing hangers is efficient
to solve or improve the fatigue problem in the
connection area. Two to four such hangers are
recommended.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, a comprehensive analysis strategy for
cable-stayed-suspension bridges is presented and a
parametric study is performed. The study can be
summarized as follows:
(1) A systematic analysis strategy for cable-stayed-
suspension bridges, including a four-step
approach for the determination of reasonable
finished dead load state, a nonlinear traffic load
analysis strategy, and a load combination
method, is proposed. A normal FEM program
without special cable elements is capable of
doing all calculations. The analysis strategy may
also be easily extended to cable-stayed bridges
and suspension bridges, considering that a
cable-stayed-suspension bridge can be easily
simplified into such bridge types with adjusted
geometric parameters.
2
3 (4) A larger sag-to-span ratio, up to 1/11.0 for the
4 studied 1400 m span bridge, is recommended for
5
6 lower internal forces in the girder and the cable
system, though the lateral and longitudinal
rigidities decrease, and the pylon might need to
be strengthened.
(5) An increase of the number of crossing hangers is
480 520 efficient to solve or improve the fatigue problem
in the connection area between the cable-stayed
parts and suspension part. Two to four such
hangers are recommended.
It is proven that the advantages of cable-stayed bridges
and suspension bridges are well combined into the cable-
stayed-suspension bridges. Although only a 1400 m span
bridge has been studied, it can be safely predicted that this
type of bridges can become an excellent alternative to
cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges. For future
work, the studies of dynamic structural characteristic,
including both the wind and earthquake behaviors, and
the economic performance are needed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the financial support from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project
No. 51008223 and 51229801). The scholarship from the
Chinese Government is also gratefully acknowledged.
This scholarship makes the first author’s research at
Louisiana State University possible. The opinions and
statements do not necessarily represent those of the
sponsors.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M. and Khalifa, M.A. (1991). “Importance of cable
vibration in dynamics of cable-stayed bridges”, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 11, pp. 2571–2589.
Buckland, P.G. (2003). “Increasing the load capacity of
suspension bridges”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 8,
No. 5, pp. 288–296.

1100 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Bin Sun, C.S. Cai and Rucheng Xiao
CCCC Highway Consultants Co., Ltd. (2004a). General Code for
Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG D60-2004), China
Communications Press, Beijing, China.
CCCC Highway Consultants Co., Ltd. (2004b). Wind-Resistant
Design Specification for Highway Bridges (JTG/T D60-01-2004),
China Communications Press, Beijing, China.
Chen, W.F. and Duan, L. (2003). Bridge Engineering: Construction
and Maintenance, CRC Press, Florida, USA.
China Merchants Chongqing Communications Research & Design
Institute Co. Ltd. (2007). Guidelines for Design of Highway Cable-
Stayed Bridge (JTG/T D65-01-2007), China Communications
Press, Beijing, China.
Firth, I.P.T. and Jensen P.O. (1999). “The design of the Java Bali
Bridge”, Proceedings, IABSE Conference on Cable-Stayed
Bridges-Past, Present and Future, Malmo, Sweden, June.
Gimsing, N.J. (1997). Cable Supported Bridges - Concept & Design,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
Herzog, M. (1996). “Das Projekt einer hybriden Seilbrücke über den
Golf von Izmit”, Bautechnik, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 37–40.
Huang, C.K. and Zhou, C.D. (2000) “Applications of steel fiber
reinforced concrete in bridges”, Proceedings, IABSE Conference
on Structural Engineering for Meeting Urban Transportation
Challenges, Lucerne, Swiss, September.
Ito, M. (1996). “Cable-supported steel bridges: design problems and
solutions”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 39,
No. 1, pp. 69–84.
Karoumi, R. (1999). “Some modeling aspects in the nonlinear finite
element analysis of cable supported bridges”, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 397–412.
Konstantakopoulos, T.G. and Michaltsos, G.T. (2010). “A
mathematical model for a combined cable system of bridges”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 2717–2728.
Li, F.R. (2010). Research on Design Problems of Self-anchored
Cable-stayed Suspension Bridge, PhD Thesis, Dalian University
of Technology, Dalian, China.
Lin, T.Y. and Chow, P. (1991). “Gibraltar Strait Crossing - a
challenge to bridge and structure engineers”, Structural
Engineering International, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 53–58.
Lou, Z.H. and Yang, Z.Y. (2001). “Cable-stayed bridges in China”,
Proceedings, IABSE Conference on Cable-Supported Bridges–
Challenging Technical Limits, Seoul, Korea, June.
Miao, J.W., Xiao, R.C., Pei, M.S., Zhang, X.G., Pircher, M. and
Janjic, D. (2005). “Global analysis of the Sutong Cable-stayed
Bridge”, Proceedings, IABSE Conference on Role of Structural
Engineers towards Reduction of Poverty, New Delhi, India,
February, pp. 343–348.
Nagai, M., Fujino, Y., Yamaguchi, H. and Iwasaki, E. (2004).
“Feasibility of a 1400 m span steel cable-stayed bridge”, Journal
of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 444–452.
Sato, Y., Sasaki, S., Morohashi, K. and Suzuki, N. (2003).
“Construction of Nagisa Bridge hybrid system of cable-stayed PC
bridge and steel suspension bridge”, Proceedings, 19th US-Japan
Bridge Engineering Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, October.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013
Suzuki, T., Kudo, H., Hasegawa, A. and Shioi, Y. (2005). “Structural
characteristics of the Nagisa-Bridge (cable-stayed suspension
bridge)”, Proceedings, 30th Conference on Our World in
Concrete & Structures, Singapore, August.
Svensson, H. (2008). “The beginnings of modern cable-stayed
bridges”, Proceedings, IStructE Centenary Conference, Hong
Kong, 2008, January.
Tang, M.C. (2007). “Evolution of bridge technology”, Proceedings,
IABSE Symposium on Improving Infrastructure Worldwide,
Weimar, Germany, September.
Xiao, R.C. and Xiang, H.F. (1999a). “Mechanics characteristics and
economic performances study for cable-stayed-suspension
bridges”, China Journal of Highway and Transport, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp. 43–48, 116.
Xiao, R.C. and Xiang, H.F. (1999b). “Study of construction control
and suspender fatigue problems for cable-stayed-suspension
bridges”, Journal of Tongji University, Vol. 27, No. 2,
pp. 234–238.
Xu, L.P. (2003). “Structural system analysis for super-long span cable-
stayed bridges”, Journal of Tongji University, Vol. 31, No. 4,
pp. 400–403.
Zhang, Z. (2009). Nonlinear Calculation Program Development of
Self-Anchored Cable-Stayed Suspension Bridge, PhD Thesis,
Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
Zhu, W.Z., Zhang, Z. and Yu, B.C. (2007). “Three-dimensional
seismic response analysis of self-anchored cable-stayed
suspension bridge with response spectrum method”, Proceedings,
5th International Conference on Current and Future Trends in
Bridge Design, Construction and Maintenance, Beijing, China,
September, pp. 132–141.
Zhu, W.Z. (2009). Determination of Reasonable Finished State and
Study on Some Problems for Self-anchored Cable-stayed
Suspension Bridge, PhD Thesis, Dalian University of
Technology, Dalian, China.
NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A cross-sectional area
E elastic modulus
H horizontal force component in the main cable
Hd exact value of horizontal component of the main
cable force
hs cable sag in the suspension part
H0 initial value of horizontal component of the
main cable force
H1 upper limit of H in the iterative calculation
H2 lower limit of H in the iterative calculation
I bending moment of inertia
Iy bending moment of inertia about the Y-axis
Iz bending moment of inertia about the Z-axis
J torsional moment of inertia
ls girder length in the suspension part
M bending moment
1101
 Analysis Strategy and Parametric Study of Cable-Stayed-Suspension Bridges

N reasonable tension force in stay cables or hangers ∆ vertical displacement of node

n number of elements or nodes ∆center vertical displacement of the central point of
Pk concentrated load in the traffic load pattern main cable in the main span
Qk uniformly distributed load in the traffic load ε initial strain of element in stay cables or hangers
pattern θm inclining angle of main cable at the pylon’s top
q uniformly distributed dead load in the in the main span
suspension part θs inclining angle of main cable at the pylon’s top
s girder length in the side span
T axial force in element in the main cable Superscripts
U bending energy of girder L left node of element
Vm vertical component of main cable force at the R right node of element
pylon’s top in the main span Subscripts
Vs vertical component of main cable force at the i ith element
pylon’s top in the side span j jth node
α inclining angle of element in the main cable k kth iterative calculation in Figure 6

1102 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 6 2013

Copyright of Advances in Structural Engineering is the property of Multi-Science Publishing
Co Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.