Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Parametric study on the dynamic response of cable stayed bridges to the sudden
failure of a stay, Part II: Bending moment acting on the pylons and stress on
the stays
C.M. Mozos a,∗ , A.C. Aparicio b
a
Department of Civil Engineering and Building, UCLM University of Castilla-La Mancha, Av. Camilo Jose Cela s/n 13071, Ciudad Real, Spain
b
Department of Construction Engineering, UPC Technical University of Catalonia, C. Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

article info abstract

Article history: The limit state of failure of a stay is one of the accidental events that must be considered in the
Received 15 December 2009 design of cable stayed bridges. The existing recommendations propose a static analysis with a dynamic
Received in revised form amplification factor, D.A.F., of 2.0 for evaluating the response of the bridge to this accidental limit state.
25 May 2010
This paper is the second part of a companion paper (i.e. Part I) which deals with the response of the cable
Accepted 1 July 2010
Available online 12 August 2010
stayed bridges to the sudden failure of a stay. Its objectives are to quantify the relative importance of the
accidental ultimate limit state of failure of a stay in the design of the bridge, and to determine the safety
Keywords:
level provided by the simplified procedure of using a static analysis with a D.A.F. of 2.0. For this purpose, a
Cable stayed bridges parametric study has been carried out. In this study, ten cable stayed bridges have been analyzed and the
Dynamic amplification factor effects of characteristics such as the layout of the stays, either fan or harp pattern, the number of planes
Loss of a cable of stays and the stiffness of the deck have been studied. The Part I companion paper details the geometry
and materials of the studied bridges, the numerical models, the basis of the analysis developed and the
results related to the deck cross sections. The present paper focuses on the response of the pylons and the
stays.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recent studies such as [1–5] have demonstrated that the use of a
dynamic amplification factor, D.A.F., equal to 2.0, as it is suggested
in [6,7], for obtaining the maximum dynamic response of a cable
stayed bridge, see [8–12], to the sudden rupture of one of its stays
becomes unsafe in some cases.
Thus, the response of four different cable stayed bridges with
a length of 403 m, which were obtained combining two concrete
decks with a fan or a harp arrangement of the stays, to the sudden
failure of a stay was studied in [1]. Simplified 2D numerical models
of the bridges were used for obtaining their dynamic responses
and self weight and fifteen live load distributions were considered.
Results detailed in [1] show that the dynamic amplification factors
for bending moments on the deck and bending moments on the
pylons can reach values much larger than 2.0 such as 4.18 and
10.61 for deck and pylons, respectively. In the case of the forces
acting on the stays, the dynamic amplification factors obtained
were around 2.0. Another general result summarized in [1] is that
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 926295300; fax: +34 926295391.
E-mail addresses: carlosmanuel.mozos@uclm.es (C.M. Mozos),
angel.carlos.aparicio@upc.edu (A.C. Aparicio).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.07.002
only a D.A.F. smaller than 2.0 was observed at cross sections which
were located close to the broken stay.
A five-span cable stayed bridge with a total length of 1140 m,
steel deck and concrete pylons was studied in [3–5]. The influence
of cable modelling and damping on the dynamic response of the
bridge to the loss of a stay was obtained from a 3D numerical model
of the bridge under permanent loads and two possible distributions
of live loads. In addition, the envelopes of the D.A.F. were obtained
from the responses of the undamped system to the loss of each one
of the stays under self-weight and without live loads. The authors
of these works concluded that a D.A.F. smaller than 2.0 seems
possible for bending moments in the stiffening girder, a D.A.F. of 2.0
is necessary for the design of the cables and significantly a larger
D.A.F. was observed for the bending moments acting on the pylons.
High values of the D.A.F. were observed at locations of the deck
placed further away from the ruptured cable, however, the authors
concluded that the dynamic responses at locations further away
from the broken cable are irrelevant when considering all cable loss
load cases, because only responses in the vicinity of the ruptured
cable are design governing.
The present paper is the second part of two papers dealing
with the response of cable stayed bridges to the sudden rupture
of one stay. The objectives are to quantify the relative importance
of the accidental ultimate limit state of failure of a stay in the
3302 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312
Fig. 1. Longitudinal layout of the bridges and location of the anchor stay studied, Sa, lateral span stay studied, Sl, and central span stay studied, Sc. Dimensions in meters.
design of the bridge, and to determine the safety level provided
by the simplified approach proposed in [6,7]. To this purpose, the
dynamic and static behavior of ten cable stayed bridges, which
are obtained combining three decks with four layouts of the stays,
are numerically analyzed. Detailed 3D numerical models of the
bridges, which include the corresponding live and variable loads,
are developed for obtaining the responses of the bridges. The
live loads distributions are determined from the influence lines
corresponding to each cross section and bridge studied. Results for
the failure of the stay which is critical for the internal force and
section studied are obtained in order to quantify and compare the
ultimate limit states of permanent and transitory loads with the
accidental limit states of failure of a stay. The influence of damping,
stiffness of the deck, number of planes of stays and arrangement
of the stays, fan or harp, on the response of the bridge to the loss
of a stay arises from the parametric study allowing to determine
which ones of these characteristics reduce the effects of the loss of
a cable and, consequently, avoid that the accidental event governs
the design of the bridge. In addition, the error incurred when the
approach suggested in [6,7] is used for evaluating the response to
the sudden loss of a stay is expressed in terms of the envelope of
the ultimate limit states of permanent and transitory loads in order
to quantify the relative importance of this error.
Results related to the response of the deck, in terms of bending
moments acting on five deck cross sections of the bridges, are
discussed in Part I [13]. The main conclusions reached indicate
that the simplified approach proposed in [6,7], AULSDAF =2 , is unsafe
in most of the cases of load combination for negative bending
moments on the deck, and the incurred error has a magnitude that
in some cases overcomes the envelope of the ultimate limit states
of permanent and transitory loads, ULSp,t . Otherwise, in the cases of
load combinations for positive bending moments, it was found that
the simplified approach leads to an unnecessary overdimensioned
deck.
The present paper focuses on the responses of the pylons and
the stays of the bridges analyzed in Part I [13]. Thus, Section 2
describes the parametric study and the pylon cross sections and
Table 1
Decks. Cross section, A, second moment of area, Iy , and torsion constant, Jx .
Deck Depth (m) A (m2 ) Iy (m4 ) Jx (m4 )
d0.40 0.40 5.20 0.069 0.277
d1.15 1.15 5.20 0.817 2.334
d2.25 2.25 5.20 3.710 9.755
stays in which the study is focused. In Sections 3 and 4, results
related to the response of the pylons and stays, respectively, are
presented and discussed. Finally, Section 5 provides some of the
conclusions related to the response of the pylons and the stays.
The references in Part I [13] are also relevant to this paper and
they will not be repeated here.
2. Description of the parametric study
Ten cable stayed bridges with a total length of 403 m spaced out
in one principal span and two lateral spans, see Fig. 1, are studied in
the parametric study. These bridges are obtained combining three
decks, whose main mechanical properties are detailed in Table 1,
with two layouts of the stays, either in a fan or in a harp pattern,
which can also be arranged in one central plane or in two lateral
planes. In all of the cases, both pylons and decks are considered to
be made of concrete. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the
ten bridges studied. Numerical models of the bridges are developed
and studied by means of linear static and dynamic analysis using
the finite element code SAP2000NL v. 8.0.8. A detailed description
of the geometry and materials of the bridges, loads considered,
numerical models and analysis developed are included in Part I
companion paper [13].
The study in this paper focuses on the bending moments acting
on the pylons and the axial stress on the stays. Since the bridges
have two symmetry axes, the bending moments on the pylon are
studied at four cross sections along one of the pylons of each
bridge. Fig. 2 shows the location of the cross sections studied along
the North-West and West pylons of bridges with two and one
 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312 3303

Table 2 Fig. 3 shows the bending moments along the pylon for the cases
Characteristics of the ten bridges studied. of the pylon cross section z = 0.00 m of the bridge F 1P d1.15 with
Bridge Stay Stay Distance between Deck’s depth the load combination for negative bending moment, (a), and of the
pattern planes stays bridge H 2P d2.25 with the load combination for positive bending
F 2P d0.40 Fan 2 6.20 0.40 moment, (b). Table 3 summarizes the values and includes the D.A.F.
F 1P d1.15 Fan 1 12.40 1.15 obtained from the dynamic analysis which is defined by
F 2P d1.15 Fan 2 12.40 1.15
F 1P d2.25 Fan 1 12.40 2.25 MAULSdyn − M0
F 2P d2.25 Fan 2 12.40 2.25 D.A.F. = . (1)
Mw/o S − M0
H 2P d0.40 Harp 2 6.20 0.40
H 1P d1.15 Harp 1 12.40 1.15 As in the case of the bending moments on the deck, studied
H 2P d1.15 Harp 2 12.40 1.15 in Part I companion paper [13], the cases plotted in Fig. 3 show
H 1P d2.25 Harp 1 12.40 2.25
H 2P d2.25 Harp 2 12.40 2.25
that the dynamic bending moments along the pylon produce
two envelopes of maxima and minima values which are very
different in magnitudes and that, in some of the cases studied,
a b become values with an opposite sign. Results show that the larger
responsibility in the stability of the bridge of the stay which
fails, the larger the difference between the envelopes. Thus, the
difference between envelopes can be reduced by increasing the
number of stays. Otherwise, the stiffness of the deck has an
opposite effect: the larger the stiffness of the deck, the smaller
the difference between the envelopes of the dynamic bending
moments acting on the pylons. Note that a stiffer deck leads to a
smaller stay cross section.
Fig. 3 illustrates also how the envelopes of the dynamic bending
moments, MAULSdyn , produced in both undamped and damped
movements overcome the static value, MAULSDAF=2 , obtained with
the simplified method. The differences are especially relevant in
the case of bridge F 1P d1.15, in which the load combination for
negative bending moment at the cross section is studied. In this
case, the D.A.F. reaches the values of 7.27 and 3.68 in the undamped
and damped movements, respectively.
Next, the obtained results for all of the pylon cross sections
and bridges studied are summarized and compared using figures
whose corresponding values are detailed in tables included in the
Appendix.

Fig. 2. Location of the four cross sections studied on the pylons of bridges with
two lateral planes of stays, (a), and of bridges with a central plane of stays, (b).
Dimensions in meters.
planes of stays, respectively. Those bending moments that produce
compression on the East side of the pylon have been considered
positive.
The axial stress is studied in an anchor stay, Sa , in a stay located
in the lateral span at x ' 56 m, Sl , and in a stay placed in the central
span at x ' 143 m, Sc , of each bridge. Fig. 1 shows the location of
the three stays studied.
3. Response of the pylon
At each one of the four cross sections of the pylon, the
envelopes of the ultimate limit states for permanent and transitory
loads, MULSp,t , are obtained from static analysis. The static bending
moment with the stay before its failure, M0 , the static bending
moment without the stay, Mw/o s , are also obtained from static
analysis but with the load combination of AULS. The dynamic
bending moments produced by the rupture of the stay along
the first 20 s of movement and their envelopes, MAULSdyn , are
obtained from the dynamic analysis with the corresponding load
combination of AULS. In addition, the static bending moment
obtained applying a D.A.F. equal to 2.0, MAULSDAF =2 , as it is suggested
in [6,7] for studying the accidental ultimate limit state of loss of a
cable, is calculated with the same load combination of AULS than
the dynamic bending moments for comparison with them. These
values are obtained for load combinations for negative and positive
bending moments at the corresponding pylon cross section
3.1. Relative importance of the accidental limit state of loss of a stay
In order to determine the relative importance of the accidental
event and those pylon cross sections where it becomes critical for
the design of the pylon, the maxima dynamic bending moments,
MAULSdyn , reached at the cross sections studied of the pylons are
compared with the envelope of the ultimate limit states for
permanent and transitory loads combinations, MULSp,t .
3.1.1. Load combinations for negative bending moments
Fig. 4 shows the ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t at the four pylon
cross sections of the bridges studied for the load combinations for
negative bending moments. The corresponding values are detailed
in Table 7. The envelope MAULSdyn overcomes MULSp,t , becoming
critical for the design of the pylon cross section, in 30% of the cases
studied for the undamped movement and in 25% when damping is
considered. Results show that the greater the distance of the cross
section to the foundation, the larger the ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t .
Thus, while MAULSdyn can reach values of three times MULSp,t at cross
sections placed at z = 72 m, it takes values between 0.40 and
0.86 of MULSp,t at the cross section z = 0 m. The average of the
ratio is 0.94 and 0.83 for the undamped and damped movements,
respectively.
The layout of the stays has an important influence on the ratio
and it is the fan pattern which leads to larger values. The effect of
the distribution of the stays in one or two planes is only clear in
those bridges with a fan pattern, where a configuration with two
planes of stays leads to a larger ratio. Results show also that the
stiffer the deck, the larger the ratio.
3304 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312

a b

Fig. 3. Bending moments (m MN) along the West pylon of the bridge F 1P d1.15 with the load combination for negative bending moment at the cross section z = 0.00 m,
(a), and along the North-West pylon of the bridge H 2P d2.25 with the load combination for positive bending moment at the cross section z = 0.00 m, (b). Static bending
moment without the stay which fails, Mw/o s , envelopes of the ultimate limit states for permanent and transitory loads, MULSp,t , envelopes of dynamic bending moments
produced by the rupture of the stay, MAULSdyn , without and with damping, and the static bending moment obtained applying a D.A.F. equal to 2.0, MAULSDAF =2 .

Table 3
Static and dynamic bending moments (m MN) and the corresponding D.A.F. Cross section z = 0.00 m of the bridge F 1P d1.15 with the load combination for negative bending
moments and cross section z = 0.00 m of the bridge H 2P d2.25 with the load combination for positive bending moments.

Bridge
F 1P d1.15 H 2P d2.25
M0 538.70 43667.30
Mw/o S −15366.64 51564.26
Static analysis MAULSDAF =2 −31271.98 59461.22
MULSp,t maxima envelope 218378.16 108140.56
MULSp,t minima envelope −134682.53 −53533.04
MAULSdyn 82076.86 71772.31
Maxima envelope
ξ = 0% D.A.F. −5.13 3.56
MAULSdyn −115162.42 31373.42
Minima envelope
Dynamic analysis D.A.F. 7.27 −1.56
MAULSdyn 26677.99 64458.53
Maxima envelope
ξ = 2% D.A.F. −1.64 2.63
MAULSdyn −57979.96 34443.54
Minima envelope
D.A.F. 3.68 −1.17

Fig. 4. Ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination
for negative bending moments at the pylon cross sections.

The influence of damping is studied with the ratio of the
damped to the undamped responses, Fig. 5. The figure shows the
influence of damping in those pylon cross sections located at z =
0.00 m, where the bending moment is reduced to between 50% and
79%. A larger effect of damping is observed in those bridges with
the stays located in one plane.
3.1.2. Load combinations for positive bending moments
The values of the ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t for the load
combinations for positive bending moments, see Fig. 6 and Table 8,
are similar to those obtained in the case of load combinations
for negative bending moments. Their average values are 0.89 and
0.74 for the undamped and damped movements, respectively. The
 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312
Fig. 5. Ratio of the dynamic bending moments obtained in the damped movement
to the undamped one at the four pylon cross studied sections of the ten bridges.
Load combination for negative bending moments at the pylon cross sections.
pylon cross sections located at the top of the pylon show the largest
ratios and characteristics such as a fan pattern and a stiffer deck
lead to a larger value of the ratio.
Fig. 7 shows the ratio of the bending moment observed in the
damped response to the undamped one. The figure shows that the
effect of damping is more uniform along the pylon than in the case
of load combinations for negative bending moments. A larger effect
of damping is observed in those bridges with a fan pattern and with
the stays distributed in one plane.
3.2. Dynamic amplification factor
3.2.1. Load combinations for negative bending moments
Fig. 8 shows the obtained D.A.F. at the four pylon cross sections
studied of each bridge. The corresponding numerical values are
summarized in Table 9. As the figure shows, the D.A.F. is larger
than the value of 2.0, proposed in [6,7], in 82.5% of the studied
cases in the undamped movement and in 77.5% when damping is
considered. The average D.A.F. is 4.92 and 3.62 for the undamped
and damped movements, respectively, and the extreme value of
22.22 is observed in bridge F 1P d1.15. Thus, it is clear that using
the value of 2.0 as D.A.F. is a very unsafe approach for evaluating
the dynamic response of the pylons to the sudden failure of a stay.
The number of planes of stays has an important effect on the
D.A.F. Thus, it is observed that the bridges with only one plane
of stays produce a larger D.A.F. Otherwise, the effect of layout
Fig. 6. Ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t at the for pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination
for positive bending moments at the cross sections.
3305
Fig. 7. Ratio of the dynamic bending moments obtained in the damped movement
to the undamped one at the four pylon cross sections studied of the ten bridges.
Load combination for positive bending moments at the cross sections.
of the stays is only clear at those pylon cross sections located
above the deck. In these cross sections, the harp pattern leads to
a smaller D.A.F. and it is in these cross sections where most of the
D.A.F. smaller than 2.0 are observed. Fig. 8 shows that, in general,
the D.A.F. increases with the distance of the cross section to the
foundation in bridges with a fan pattern and one plane of stays and
it decreases in the rest of the cases.
Damping leads to a reduction of the D.A.F. which is larger in
those pylon cross sections placed at z = 0.00 m. The effect of
damping is clearly larger in those bridges with one plane of stays
and to a lesser extent in the bridges with a fan pattern and a more
flexible deck, with the exception of the d0.40 deck.
3.2.2. Load combinations for positive bending moments
The D.A.F. obtained with load combinations for positive bending
moments are smaller than those obtained for negative bending
moments, Fig. 9 and Table 10. Thus, the average of the D.A.F. is 3.14
and 2.16 for the undamped and damped movements, respectively.
Nevertheless, the D.A.F. overcomes the value of 2.0 in 70% of
the cases studied without damping and in 40% when damping
is considered. The largest D.A.F. is observed in the bridge F 1P
d1.15 and it reaches the value of 14.74 and 7.13 without and
with damping, respectively. As Fig. 9 shows, there is an important
difference between the cross sections placed at z = 0.00 m and
the rest of the cross sections studied.
The number of planes of stays has a great influence on the D.A.F.
and larger values are reached in bridges with the stays distributed
3306 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312
Fig. 8. D.A.F. obtained at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for
negative bending moments at the cross sections.
Fig. 9. D.A.F. obtained at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for positive
bending moments at the cross sections.
in one plane. In general, the fan pattern and a more flexible deck
are characteristics which lead to a larger D.A.F.
Damping has a larger effect on the cross sections which are close
to the foundation and in those bridges with one plane of stays.
Results show that the effect of damping is also larger in the bridges
with a fan pattern and a more flexible deck.
3.3. Qualitative error incurred using the P.T.I. approach
Since the D.A.F. obtained is quite different from 2.0, which is the
value proposed for the simplified procedure suggested in [6,7], the
incurred error when using this simplified approach is investigated
next. The qualitative error, Eq , Eq. (2), is obtained and expressed
as a percentage of the envelope of the ultimate limit states for
permanent and transitory loads, MULSp,t in order to quantify the
magnitude of the error.
MALSdyn − MALSDAF =2
Eq = × 100.
MULSp,t
3.3.1. Load combination for negative bending moments
The qualitative error, Eq , along the pylon studied of each bridge
is plotted in Fig. 10 and the corresponding values are summarized
in Table 11. The average of the qualitative error is −21.94% and
−9.62% without and with damping, respectively, and extreme
values such as −90% are observed.
Fig. 10 shows that the qualitative error increases with the
distance of the pylon cross section to the foundation. The fan
pattern and the stays distributed in one plane are characteristics
which lead to a larger qualitative error. On the other hand, a stiffer
deck produces a larger qualitative error in bridges with a harp
pattern and the opposite effect has been observed in the bridges
with the fan pattern.
The qualitative error increases with damping in those cases
in which MAULSDAF =2 is larger than MAULSdyn otherwise it decreases.
Results show that in bridges with a fan pattern damping has
a uniform effect which decreases with the further from the
foundation.
Thus, the incurred error when evaluating the response of the
bridge to the failure of a stay by a static analysis and a D.A.F. of 2.0
(2) has a relevant magnitude in terms of the envelope of permanent
and transitory loads. Those cases in which MAULSdyn is larger than
MAULSDAF =2 and MULSp,t are of major importance due to the pylon
cross section will have to face a bending moment larger than the
design bending moment in the case that the simplified approach
has been used instead of a dynamic analysis. Table 4 summarizes
the ratio of MAULS to MULSp,t , where MAULS is the largest of MAULSdyn
 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312 3307

Fig. 10. Qualitative error, Eq , see Eq. (2), incurred when using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 instead of a dynamic analysis for evaluating the response of the
bridge to the sudden failure of one stay. Load combinations for negative bending moments at each pylon cross section of the bridges studied.

Table 4
Ratio of MAULS to MULSp,t , where MAULS is the largest of MAULSdyn and MAULSDAF =2 . Those cases in which MAULSdyn > MAULSDAF =2 are underlined. Load combination for negative
bending moments at the pylon cross sections.
Bridge MAULS /MULSp,t
ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00

F 2P d0.40 0.42 0.61 0.61 0.83 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.81

F 1P d1.15 0.86 0.88 0.95 1.24 0.43 0.77 0.82 1.00
F 2P d1.15 0.60 0.97 1.06 2.17 0.42 0.91 0.97 2.09
F 1P d2.25 0.68 0.96 1.33 1.55 0.43 0.91 1.06 1.34
F 2P d2.25 0.71 1.07 1.34 3.08 0.49 1.01 1.24 2.96
H 2P d0.40 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.86 0.28 0.48 0.58 0.86
H 1P d1.15 0.70 0.69 0.88 0.92 0.41 0.55 0.82 0.92
H 2P d1.15 0.42 0.61 0.89 1.60 0.31 0.53 0.89 1.60
H 1P d2.25 0.79 0.84 1.22 1.24 0.44 0.74 1.11 1.24
H 2P d2.25 0.47 0.66 1.18 2.18 0.27 0.62 1.18 2.18

and MAULSDAF =2 for each case. Those cases in which MAULSdyn is larger
than MAULSDAF =2 are underlined.
Only in a few cases, which are mainly the upper cross sections
of the pylons of bridges with a fan pattern, the envelope MAULSdyn is
larger than both MAULSDAF =2 and MULSp,t . This can lead us to consider
that, in general, the integrity of the cross section will not be
compromised in the case that the response to the rupture of cable
is evaluated with MAULSDAF =2 due to the fact that the magnitude
of the envelope of permanent and transitory loads is much larger
in most of the cases. It is necessary to remark that, since the
deck is connected to both pylons, temperature loads increase
the envelope of the bending moments in both pylons leading to
these results. To illustrate the relevance of this configuration, the
response of a bridge which is similar to bridge F 1P d1.15 but with
the possibility that the free displacement between the deck and
the East pylon has been investigated. This configuration avoids an
Fig. 11. Bending moments (m MN) along the West pylon of the bridge F 1P
increase in temperature in the deck producing bending moments d1.15 with free displacement between the deck and the East pylon. Static bending
on the pylons. Fig. 11 shows the bending moments along the West moment without the stay which fails, Mw/o s , envelopes of the ultimate limit states
pylon of this bridge for the load combination for negative bending for permanent and transitory loads, MULSp,t , envelopes of the dynamic bending
moment at the pylon cross section z = 0.00 m. The bending moment produced by the rupture of the stay, MAULSdyn , without and with damping,
and static bending moment obtained applying a D.A.F. equal to 2.0, MAULSDAF =2 . Load
moments plotted in this figure can be compared with those shown combination for negative bending moment at the cross section z = 0.00 m.
in Fig. 3(a). Thus, the magnitude of the reduction produced on the
envelope for permanent and transitory loads is clear by allowing 3.3.2. Load combinations for positive bending moments
the relative displacement between the deck and one of the pylons. Fig. 12 shows the qualitative error for load combinations for
With this reduction, the envelope MAULSdyn becomes critical for the positive bending moments. The corresponding values are detailed
design of the pylon cross section and using a static analysis with a in Table 12. The average of the qualitative error is −9.50% for
D.A.F. of 2.0 is an extremely unsafe approach. the undamped movement and 5.91% when damping is considered.
3308 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312

Fig. 12. Qualitative error, Eq , see Eq. (2), incurred using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 instead of a dynamic analysis for evaluating the response of the bridge to
the sudden failure of one stay. Load combinations for positive bending moments at each pylon cross section of the bridges studied.

Table 5
Ratio of MAULS to MULSp,t , where MAULS is the largest of MAULSdyn and MAULSDAF =2 . Those cases in which MAULSdyn > MAULSDAF =2 are underlined. Load combination for positive
bending moments at the pylon cross sections.
Bridge MAULS /MULSp,t
ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
0.00 26.20 ≈56.0 72.00 0.00 26.20 ≈56.0 72.00

F 2P d0.40 0.57 0.77 0.79 1.30 0.52 0.77 0.71 1.30

F 1P d1.15 0.84 0.90 1.00 1.38 0.61 0.66 0.72 0.94
F 2P d1.15 0.67 0.82 0.85 1.90 0.61 0.82 0.76 1.90
F 1P d2.25 0.76 0.91 1.24 1.59 0.62 0.82 0.90 1.22
F 2P d2.25 0.81 0.86 1.05 2.28 0.75 0.86 0.80 2.28
H 2P d0.40 0.60 0.45 0.47 0.62 0.51 0.43 0.42 0.62
H 1P d1.15 0.73 0.74 0.97 0.96 0.58 0.68 0.88 0.96
H 2P d1.15 0.65 0.53 0.72 0.87 0.55 0.49 0.72 0.86
H 1P d2.25 0.83 0.84 1.22 1.39 0.62 0.79 1.20 1.39
H 2P d2.25 0.66 0.55 1.12 1.06 0.60 0.55 1.12 1.06

In general, for these load combinations the qualitative error is
smaller than for load combinations for negative bending moments.
Nevertheless, extreme values close to −80% are observed.
The largest qualitative errors are found at those pylon cross
sections located at z = 72.00 m, otherwise, those cross sections
which coincide with the deck are those in which the error is the
smallest.
The magnitude of the qualitative error is influenced greatly
by the number of planes of stays and to a lesser extent by the
layout, fan or harp pattern, of the stays. Thus, the largest errors are
observed in bridges with one plane of stays and a fan pattern.
As in the case of load combinations for negative bending
moments, the qualitative error increases with damping in those
cases in which MAULSDAF =2 is larger than MAULSdyn otherwise it
decreases. Thus, it is observed that in many pylon cross sections,
and especially in those which coincide with the deck, the
qualitative error changes its sign when damping is considered and
the effect of damping becomes relevant from a qualitative point of
view.
Table 5 summarizes the ratio of MAULS to MULSp,t as it was
defined for the load combinations for negative bending moments.
Only in a small number of cases, which are mainly the upper
pylon cross sections of bridges with one plane of stays and a fan
pattern, the dynamic bending moment is larger than the envelope
of permanent and transitory loads and the static bending moment
obtained with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0. This is a consequence of the
connection of the deck to both pylons, and it has been tested that
when the relative displacement between deck and pylon is allowed
in one of the pylons the envelope of dynamic bending moments
becomes critical for the design of the cross section.
4. Response of the stays
The response of the stays is studied in terms of the axial stress
acting on the stay. Thus, at the three stays studied in each bridge,
Fig. 1, the static axial stress with the stay, before its failure, σ0 and
the static axial stress without the stay, σw/o s , are obtained from
the static analysis. The dynamic stresses produced by the rupture
of the stay throughout the first twenty seconds of movement and
their envelopes, σAULSdyn , are obtained from the dynamic analysis.
In addition, the corresponding static stress obtained applying a
D.A.F. of 2.0, σAULSDAF =2 , as is suggested in [6,7] for studying the
accidental ultimate limit state of the loss of a cable, is calculated
and compared with the dynamic stresses. Since the minima axial
stresses, and consequently the stress range, is only interesting from
the fatigue phenomena point of view, only load combinations for
maxima axial stress are studied.
Fig. 13 shows the stress acting on the stays of bridge F 1P d1.15
for the load combination of maximum stress on the stay located
in the lateral span, Sl . The values of the stresses acting on the stay
studied are detailed in Table 6. The figure shows how the static
effect of the failure of the stay has only a relevant magnitude for
those stays which are close to the one which fails. Otherwise, the
dynamic effect is not negligible even if the stay is placed far away.
4.1. Relative importance of the accidental limit state of loss of a stay
In order to determine the relative importance of the accidental
limit state of the loss of a stay, the ratio of dynamic response to the
ultimate tensile strength, fu , is obtained, Table 13, and plotted in
 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312 3309

Fig. 13. Case corresponding to stay Sl (stay number four) of bridge F 1P d1.15. Axial stresses (MPa) acting on the stays with the load combination for maximum axial force
on the stay Sl and the failure of the stay number two. Static stress without the stay which fails, σw/o s , and with it, σ0 , envelope of dynamic stresses produced by the rupture
of the stay, σAULSdyn , without and with damping, and static stress obtained applying a D.A.F. equal to 2.0, σAULSDAF =2 .

Fig. 14. Ratio of σAULSdyn to fu at the anchor stay, Sa , at a stay placed in the lateral span, Sl , and a stay placed in the central span, Sc , of the ten bridges studied in the undamped
(ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for maximum axial force on the stay studied.

Table 6 Table 7
Static and dynamic stresses (MPa) and the corresponding D.A.F. acting on the stay Ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied
Sl , stay number four, of bridge F 1P d1.15 with the load combination for maximum in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination
axial force on the stay. for negative bending moments at the cross sections.

σ0 565.63 Bridge MAULSdyn /MULSp,t

Static analysis σw/o s 740.49 ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
σAULSDAF =2 915.36
0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00
σAULSdyn 952.79
ξ = 0% Maxima envelope F 2P d0.40 0.42 0.61 0.61 0.83 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.81
D.A.F. 2.21
Dynamic analysis F 1P d1.15 0.86 0.88 0.95 1.24 0.43 0.77 0.82 1.00
σAULSdyn 917.12 F 2P d1.15 0.60 0.97 1.06 2.17 0.42 0.91 0.97 2.09
ξ = 2% Maxima envelope
D.A.F. 2.01 F 1P d2.25 0.68 0.96 1.33 1.55 0.43 0.91 1.06 1.34
F 2P d2.25 0.71 1.07 1.34 3.08 0.49 1.01 1.24 2.96
H 2P d0.40 0.40 0.51 0.62 0.75 0.28 0.46 0.58 0.74
Fig. 14. The small magnitude of the ratios obtained, the average
H 1P d1.15 0.70 0.69 0.88 0.91 0.41 0.55 0.82 0.77
is 0.34 and 0.33 for the undamped and damped movements, H 2P d1.15 0.42 0.61 0.83 1.19 0.31 0.53 0.78 1.16
respectively, is a consequence of the criteria considered for the H 1P d2.25 0.79 0.84 1.22 0.98 0.44 0.74 1.06 0.91
design of the stays. H 2P d2.25 0.47 0.66 1.01 1.56 0.27 0.62 0.95 1.52
In those bridges with a fan pattern, the ratio is larger in the
anchor stay and in the stay placed in the lateral span. Otherwise, a
harp pattern leads to a larger ratio in the stays located in the central larger effect is observed in the anchor stays and in bridges with
span. The number of planes of stays has a relevant influence on one plane of stays.
the magnitude of the ratio and it is observed that a larger ratio is
obtained in those bridges with one plane of stays. To a lesser extent, 4.2. Dynamic amplification factor
a stiffer deck also leads to a larger ratio.
Damping produces a slight reduction in the dynamic stresses The D.A.F. corresponding to the axial stress acting on the stays
which varies between 1% and 6%. However small its influence, a is detailed in Table 14 and plotted in Fig. 15. The D.A.F. obtained
3310 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312

Fig. 15. D.A.F. obtained at the three stays of the ten bridges studied in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for maximum axial
force on the stay studied.

Table 8 Table 10
Ratio of MAULSdyn to MULSp,t at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied D.A.F. obtained at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied in the
in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for
for positive bending moments at the cross sections. positive bending moments at the cross sections.
Bridge MAULSdyn /MULSp,t Bridge D.A.F.
ξ = 0% ξ = 2% ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00

F 2P d0.40 0.57 0.73 0.79 1.16 0.52 0.63 0.57 0.92 F 2P d0.40 3.65 1.86 2.28 1.73 2.66 1.51 1.43 1.29
F 1P d1.15 0.84 0.90 1.00 1.38 0.61 0.66 0.72 0.94 F 1P d1.15 14.74 3.29 3.74 5.50 7.13 2.20 2.44 3.48
F 2P d1.15 0.67 0.80 0.85 1.60 0.61 0.63 0.67 1.54 F 2P d1.15 3.60 1.96 2.30 1.65 2.82 1.40 1.69 1.57
F 1P d2.25 0.76 0.91 1.24 1.59 0.62 0.76 0.90 1.22 F 1P d2.25 5.00 2.29 3.33 4.46 3.11 1.80 2.25 3.26
F 2P d2.25 0.81 0.85 1.05 2.15 0.75 0.63 0.80 2.06 F 2P d2.25 3.17 1.99 2.79 1.88 2.74 1.32 1.99 1.79

H 2P d0.40 0.60 0.45 0.47 0.62 0.51 0.42 0.39 0.54 H 2P d0.40 4.79 2.18 2.49 2.00 2.62 1.86 1.73 1.56
H 1P d1.15 0.73 0.74 0.97 0.89 0.58 0.67 0.75 0.79 H 1P d1.15 6.97 2.26 2.26 1.81 3.84 1.96 1.61 1.52
H 2P d1.15 0.65 0.53 0.65 0.87 0.55 0.49 0.60 0.69 H 2P d1.15 4.32 2.28 1.72 2.03 2.59 2.00 1.55 1.42
H 1P d2.25 0.83 0.84 1.22 1.11 0.62 0.69 1.01 0.95 H 1P d2.25 5.01 2.17 2.04 1.52 2.60 1.68 1.64 1.24
H 2P d2.25 0.66 0.54 0.92 0.85 0.60 0.50 0.82 0.77 H 2P d2.25 3.56 1.97 1.58 1.51 2.63 1.69 1.35 1.33

4.3. Qualitative error incurred using the P.T.I. approach

Table 9
D.A.F. obtained at the four pylon cross sections of the ten bridges studied in the
undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for The error incurred when using the simplified approach sug-
negative bending moments at the cross sections. gested in [6,7] instead of a dynamic analysis is investigated next.
Bridge D.A.F. For this purpose, the qualitative error, Eq , is obtained and expressed
ξ = 0% ξ = 2% as a percentage of the ultimate tensile strength, fu , Eq. (3).
0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00
σALSdyn − σALSDAF =2
F 2P d0.40 2.98 3.91 3.26 2.55 2.37 3.33 2.76 2.41 Eq = × 100. (3)
F 1P d1.15 7.27 12.29 14.39 22.22 3.68 9.29 10.79 15.49 fu
F 2P d1.15 4.26 3.63 5.00 2.63 2.98 3.19 4.33 2.50
F 1P d2.25 4.74 4.95 8.45 10.56 3.11 4.42 5.88 8.58 Fig. 16 shows the qualitative error, Eq , for each one of the stays
F 2P d2.25 3.09 2.97 4.98 2.58 2.16 2.70 4.39 2.46 and bridges studied and Table 15 details the corresponding values.
H 2P d0.40 4.16 2.74 2.87 1.53 2.78 1.58 2.27 1.46 As the D.A.F. is close to 2.0, the magnitude of the qualitative error
H 1P d1.15 4.27 14.93 2.44 1.99 2.51 7.81 2.10 1.45 is very small: the average is 1.81% and 2.90% for the undamped
H 2P d1.15 3.65 3.67 1.73 1.32 2.72 2.25 1.54 1.27 and damped movements, respectively. Thus, a static analysis with
H 1P d2.25 4.69 5.08 2.31 1.39 2.78 3.90 1.85 1.24
a D.A.F. of 2.0 can be considered a safe method not only because
H 2P d2.25 4.40 3.89 1.55 1.31 2.73 3.24 1.40 1.27
of the sign of the qualitative error but also because of its small
magnitude.
Neither the layout of the stays, nor the number of planes of stays
in most of the cases is smaller than 2.0. The average value is 1.68
or the stiffness of the deck seems to affect the magnitude of the
and 1.47 for the undamped and damped movements, respectively. error. On the other hand, damping causes an increase of the error
Despite these reduced values, it is observed that characteristics and it has a larger effect on the anchor stay and on those stays
such as stays distributed in one plane, a fan pattern and a more located in the lateral span.
flexible deck lead to a larger D.A.F. Due to the criteria considered for the design of the stays,
Damping produces a reduction in the dynamic stress comprised in which the maximum stress and stress range are limited,
between 1% and 8%. The effect of the damping is larger in bridges the dynamic stress is always below 55% of the ultimate tensile
with a stiffer deck and it does not depend on the number of planes strength, fu . Thus, the accidental limit state of failure of one stay
of stays of the bridge or the layout of the stays. does not become critical for the design of the stays.
 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312 3311

Table 11
Qualitative error, Eq , see Eq. (2), incurred using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 instead of a dynamic analysis for evaluating the response of the bridge to the sudden
failure of one stay. Load combinations for negative bending moments at each pylon cross section of the bridges studied.
Bridge Eq (%)
ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00

F 2P d0.40 −14.42 −4.30 −17.03 −9.35 −5.45 −2.99 −10.18 −7.05

F 1P d1.15 −62.29 −37.59 −45.25 −73.87 −19.83 −26.63 −32.10 −49.27
F 2P d1.15 −32.20 −24.50 −37.69 −41.76 −14.01 −17.94 −29.25 −33.40
F 1P d2.25 −41.98 −30.96 −67.79 −90.00 −17.01 −25.43 −40.79 −69.17
F 2P d2.25 −26.69 −20.55 −53.76 −59.35 −4.02 −14.81 −43.18 −47.12
H 2P d0.40 −18.84 −2.98 −6.10 10.93 −6.83 1.71 −1.93 12.53
H 1P d1.15 −37.13 −25.33 −8.24 0.33 −8.34 −11.38 −1.83 14.30
H 2P d1.15 −19.07 −9.05 6.46 41.42 −8.30 −1.36 10.86 44.22
H 1P d2.25 −48.92 −24.90 −10.47 26.18 −14.14 −15.36 5.13 32.76
H 2P d2.25 −28.76 −11.28 16.91 62.66 −8.78 −7.42 22.56 66.25

Table 12
Qualitative error, Eq , see Eq. (2), incurred using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 instead of a dynamic analysis for evaluating the response of the bridge to the sudden
failure of one stay. Load combinations for positive bending moments at each pylon cross section of the bridges studied.
Bridge Eq (%)
ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00 0.00 26.20 56.00 72.00

F 2P d0.40 −8.20 4.13 −7.30 14.34 −3.27 13.99 14.79 38.03

F 1P d1.15 −39.10 −28.05 −37.68 −76.08 −15.75 −4.29 −9.54 −32.14
F 2P d1.15 −12.63 1.19 −8.64 29.91 −6.42 18.76 8.99 36.38
F 1P d2.25 −22.44 −9.15 −41.72 −77.14 −8.31 6.12 −7.70 −39.51
F 2P d2.25 −15.69 0.30 −24.34 12.89 −9.88 22.58 0.37 22.04
H 2P d0.40 −12.13 −1.69 −5.19 0.01 −2.68 1.32 2.83 8.20
H 1P d1.15 −23.31 −5.66 −8.61 6.88 −8.63 0.88 13.06 17.12
H 2P d1.15 −13.13 −3.50 6.97 −0.94 −3.33 0.02 11.42 17.77
H 1P d2.25 −25.30 −4.93 −1.85 28.28 −5.01 9.15 18.63 44.68
H 2P d2.25 −11.38 0.55 19.95 20.67 −4.62 4.98 30.64 28.36

Fig. 16. Qualitative error, Eq , see Eq. (3), incurred using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 instead of a dynamic analysis for evaluating the response of the bridge to
the sudden failure of one stay. Load combination for maximum axial force on the stay studied.

5. Conclusions
A parametric study on the response of cable stayed bridges to
the sudden rupture of one of its stays has been developed in this
paper. The bridges studied were defined combining characteristics
such as the layout of the stays, fan or harp pattern, the stiffness
of the deck and the arrangement of the stays in one or two
planes. The study is focused on the bending moments acting
on four pylon cross sections and on the axial stress on three
stays of ten cable stayed bridges. The Accidental Ultimate Limit
State of failure of a stay, A.U .L.S ., was investigated following two
different approaches: by means of a dynamic analysis with time-
step integration of the equation of motion, A.U .L.S .dyn , and by the
simplified static analysis in which a dynamic amplification factor
(D.A.F.) equal to 2.0 is applied to the static load, A.U .L.S .DAF =2 , as
it is suggested in [7,6]. The A.U .L.S. was also compared with the
envelope of the ultimate limit state of permanent and transitory
loads, U .L.S .p,t , in the case of the pylon cross sections, and with the
ultimate tensile strength fu in the case of the stress on the stays. The
objectives of the study are to determine the qualitative importance
of the accidental limit state of failure of a stay in the design of
the pylon and stays and to define the safety level reached when
using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 for determining the
response of a cable stayed bridge to the sudden failure of a stay.
3312 C.M. Mozos, A.C. Aparicio / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 3301–3312

Table 13 Table 15
Ratio of σAULSdyn to the ultimate tensile strength, fu , at the three stays studied of the Qualitative error, Eq , see Eq. (3), incurred using a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal
ten bridges in the undamped (ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load to 2.0 instead of a dynamic analysis for evaluating the response of the bridge to the
combination for maximum axial force on the stay studied. sudden failure of one stay. Load combination for maximum axial force on the stay
studied.
Bridge σAULSdyn /fu
Bridge Eq (%)
ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
ξ = 0% ξ = 2%
Sa Sl Sc Sa Sl Sc
Sa Sl Sc Sa Sl Sc
F 2P d0.40 0.16 0.34 0.33 0.15 0.34 0.32
F 1P d1.15 0.18 0.51 0.44 0.17 0.49 0.42 F 2P d0.40 1.12 2.81 2.96 1.48 3.33 3.47
F 2P d1.15 0.20 0.39 0.36 0.19 0.38 0.35 F 1P d1.15 0.27 −2.01 4.03 1.15 −0.09 6.01
F 1P d2.25 0.24 0.53 0.42 0.22 0.52 0.40 F 2P d1.15 1.32 −0.28 3.12 2.14 0.64 4.75
F 2P d2.25 0.24 0.47 0.37 0.23 0.46 0.35 F 1P d2.25 0.87 1.94 3.09 2.29 3.65 5.19
F 2P d2.25 1.64 2.00 2.31 2.68 2.83 3.93
H 2P d0.40 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.33 0.33
H 1P d1.15 0.15 0.47 0.43 0.15 0.46 0.41 H 2P d0.40 0.27 2.46 3.00 0.53 3.25 3.44
H 2P d1.15 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.36 0.36 H 1P d1.15 0.70 1.01 3.27 1.60 2.83 5.40
H 1P d2.25 0.19 0.53 0.50 0.17 0.52 0.50 H 2P d1.15 0.52 2.29 3.35 1.07 2.77 4.47
H 2P d2.25 0.16 0.47 0.42 0.15 0.46 0.41 H 1P d2.25 1.13 2.00 4.01 2.64 2.83 4.71
H 2P d2.25 0.91 1.99 2.35 1.55 2.92 3.53

Table 14
D.A.F. obtained at the three stays studied of the ten bridges in the undamped far away. Nevertheless, it has been observed that the stay which
(ξ = 0%) and damped (ξ = 2%) movements. Load combination for maximum axial is critical, that is the most unfavorable, is close to the stay stud-
force on the stay studied. ied.
Bridge D.A.F. • The ratio of the maxima dynamic stresses produced by the fail-
ξ = 0% ξ = 2% ure of one stay to the ultimate tensile strength, fu , has an aver-
Sa Sl Sc Sa Sl Sc
age value of 0.34. Thus, the accidental limit state of failure of a
stay does not control the design of the stays in the cases studied.
F 2P 0.40 1.63 1.56 1.54 1.51 1.48 1.46 • The D.A.F. obtained for the axial stress in stays are in most of
F 1P 1.15 1.89 2.21 1.64 1.55 2.01 1.46
the cases smaller than 2.0. The average value is 1.68 for the un-
F 2P 1.15 1.67 2.05 1.55 1.46 1.88 1.32
F 1P 2.25 1.76 1.76 1.62 1.38 1.55 1.36 damped movement and 1.47 when 2% of the critical damping is
F 2P 2.25 1.62 1.59 1.55 1.39 1.43 1.20 considered.
• The average magnitude of the error when using a static analy-
H 2P 0.40 1.74 1.59 1.51 1.50 1.46 1.44
H 1P 1.15 1.76 1.90 1.67 1.46 1.72 1.46
sis and a D.A.F. of 2.0 is 1.81% and 2.90% for the undamped and
H 2P 1.15 1.71 1.63 1.50 1.41 1.55 1.33 damped movements, respectively, expressed as a percentage of
H 1P 2.25 1.72 1.74 1.49 1.34 1.63 1.40 fu .
H 2P 2.25 1.64 1.57 1.52 1.39 1.38 1.29 • Thus, a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 can be consid-
ered as a safe method for evaluating the stress on the stays not
only because of the sign of the error but also because of its small
The main conclusions reached related to the pylons are:
magnitude.
• The accidental failure of one stay produces large bending
moments on the pylons making the corresponding ULS critical
Appendix
for the design of the pylon, especially when the relative
displacement deck-pylon is allowed in one of the pylons and, See Tables 7–15.
consequently, the effect of loads such as temperature loads is
reduced. A fan pattern and a stiffer deck are characteristics References
which lead to larger dynamic bending moments. The obtained
D.A.F. overcomes the value of 2.0 in 82% of the cases studied of [1] Mozos CM, Aparicio AC. Proceedings of IABMAS conference on bridge
load combinations for negative bending moments an in 70% of maintenance, safety, management, life-cycle performance and cost. IABMAS;
2006.
positive bending moments. The D.A.F. is clearly larger in those [2] Mozos CM. Theoretical and experimental study on the structural response of
bridges with only one plane of stays, where the extreme value cable stayed bridges to a stay failure. Ph.D. thesis. Advisor: Aparicio, A.C. Spain:
of 22.2 is observed. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha; 2007 [in Spanish].
[3] Wolff M, Starossek U. Robustness assessment of a cable-stayed bridge. In:
• The simplified approach consisting of using a constant D.A.F Proceedings, 4th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety, and
equal to 2.0 for evaluating the bending moments acting on the management. 2008.
[4] Wolff M, Starossek U. Cable loss and progressive collapse in cable-stayed
pylon in the accidental ultimate limit state of failure of a stay bridges. Bridge Struct 2009;5/2009:17–28.
leads to incur in a non negligible error for both load combina- [5] Starossek U. Avoiding disproportional collapse of major bridges. Struct Eng Int
tions for positive and negative bending moments. The average 2009;3/2009:289–97.
[6] P.T.I. Recommendations for stay cable design, testing and installation. USA:
error, expressed as a percentage of the envelope of U .L.S .p,t , is Post-Tensioning Institute; 2007.
−21.94% and −9.60% for load combinations for negative and [7] SETRA. Haubans. Recommandations de la Commission Interministérielle de la
positive bending moments, respectively, and an extreme error Précontrainte, Service d’Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes. Francia;
2001.
of −90% is observed. Configurations of the bridges with a fan [8] Walther R, Houriet B, Isler W, Moïa P, Klein JF. Cable stayed bridges. 2nd ed.
pattern and one plane of stays leads to a larger error. Thomas Telford Publishing; 1999.
[9] Podolny W, Muller JM. Construction and design of prestressed concrete
• Thus, a static analysis with a D.A.F. equal to 2.0 is a very unsafe segmental bridges. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1982.
approach for evaluating the bending moments acting on the py- [10] Gimsing NJ. Cable supported bridges, concept and design. 2nd ed. John Wiley
lon due to the failure of one stay. and Sons, Inc.; 1997.
[11] IABSE. Proceedings of IABSE conference cable-stayed bridges. past, present and
The main conclusions reached related to stays are: future. IBSE; 1999.
[12] IABSE. Proceedings of IABSE conference on cable-supported bridges in Seoul.
• The static effect of the failure of the stay has only a relevant IABSE; 2001.
[13] Mozos CM, Aparicio AC. Parametric study on the dynamic response of cable
magnitude for those stays which are close to the one which fails. stayed bridges to the sudden failure of a stay, part I: bending moment acting
Otherwise, the dynamic effect is not negligible even if the stay is on the deck. Eng Struct 2010;32:3288–300.