See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341160302

The Optimum Reinforced Concrete Deck Stiffness of Cable-Stayed Bridge

Decks

Article  in  Procedia Manufacturing · May 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.240

CITATIONS READS

0 60

2 authors:

Ayah Alkhawaldeh Rajai Z. Al-Rousan

Jordan University of Science and Technology Jordan University of Science and Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   620 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STRAND TRANSFER LENGTH IN CONCRETE GIRDER View project

Stability of Beams View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayah Alkhawaldeh on 05 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349

1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design (OPTARCH 2019)

1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design (OPTARCH 2019)

The
The Optimum
Optimum Reinforced
Reinforced Concrete
Concrete Deck
Deck Stiffness
Stiffness of
of Cable-Stayed
Cable-Stayed
Bridge Decks
Bridge Decks
a b
Ayah
Ayah A.
A. Alkhawaldeh
Alkhawaldeha,, Rajai
Rajai Al-Rousan
Al-Rousanb**
a
a Ph.D Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
Ph.D
b Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
bProfessor, Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Abstract
Abstract
This paper aims to find optimum deck stiffness and optimum girder profile in terms of vertical deformation and
This paper aims to find optimum deck stiffness and optimum girder profile in terms of vertical deformation and
cable stresses. The feasibility of this study was achieved by analyse and develop eighteen models twice using
cable stresses. The feasibility of this study was achieved by analyse and develop eighteen models twice using
ABAQUS software; six different deck stiffness and three different girder profile. A nonlinear static finite element
ABAQUS software; six different deck stiffness and three different girder profile. A nonlinear static finite element
analysis was performed on the previous models. The results show that the maximum stress found at maximum deck
analysis was performed on the previous models. The results show that the maximum stress found at maximum deck
stiffness and the maximum cable stress found at maximum girder cross section. Also, the deflection decreased
stiffness and the maximum cable stress found at maximum girder cross section. Also, the deflection decreased
dramatically with the increase of deck stiffness. Therefore, the relationship between the vertical displacement and
dramatically with the increase of deck stiffness. Therefore, the relationship between the vertical displacement and
deck stiffness is inverse. Referring to the data obtained and collected from these analytical models the concrete deck
deck stiffness is inverse. Referring to the data obtained and collected from these analytical models the concrete deck
slab with 50 MPa grade is the optimum grade in terms of strength and serviceability requirements.
slab with 50 MPa grade is the optimum grade in terms of strength and serviceability requirements.
©
© 2019 The Authors.
2020 The Authors. Published by
by Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
© 2019 The Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific
under responsibility scientific committee
committee ofof the
the 1st
1st International
International Conference
Conference on
on Optimization-Driven
Optimization-Driven
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven
ArchitecturalDesign
Architectural Design
Architectural Design
Keywords:Optimization; Cable-Stayed, Bridges; Cable spacing; Deck stiffness; Vertical deformation; Degradation.
Keywords:Optimization; Cable-Stayed, Bridges; Cable spacing; Deck stiffness; Vertical deformation; Degradation.

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Pre-stressed cable stayed bridges can be defined as an effective solution for connecting very long and wide span
Pre-stressed cable stayed bridges can be defined as an effective solution for connecting very long and wide span
crossing. There are more than 600 bridges of cable stayed type have been constructed all over the world. Span
crossing. There are more than 600 bridges of cable stayed type have been constructed all over the world. Span

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +962-799887574; fax: +962-2-7201074.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +962-799887574; fax: +962-2-7201074.
E-mail address: rzalrousan@just.edu.jo
E-mail address: rzalrousan@just.edu.jo

2351-9789© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

2351-9789© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design

2351-9789 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.240
 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349 343
2 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

length of cable stayed bridge ranging from 100 m to 500 m in the past, while during this decade the length of cable
stayed bridge is increased to 1000 m. Many aspects have been considered in the design and construct the cable
stayed bridges, for instance: the number of towers, spans, girders and cables in order to the type of cables and
girders [3]. Cable stayed bridges are classified into three groups including: harp, van and radial.

Pre-stressed concrete bridges rank as one of the longest structures in the world. The reasons for the selection of
the cable stayed pre-stressed concrete bridge were given as follows according to [4], Reduction of maintenance
costs, the aesthetics of the design, Greater use of the engineering talent and labor and achieve a very long span
bridge which can connect two cities together. An example of the importance of pre-stressed cable stayed bridge is
Magliana Viaduct Bridge this is still an example of Morandi's structures. This particular bridge carries the roadway
of the Rome-Fiumicino Airport over a swamp area formed by a bend of the Tiber River.

Leonhardt [7] indicated that scope of range is just a single vital parameter in designing cable stayed bridges.
Extraordinary circumstances, for example, curved spans and skew intersections can be effectively understood using
stays. The designer engineer can pick between a great set of arrangements: symmetrical ranges with two towers,
unsymmetrical traverses suspended from one tower, or multi-ranges with a few towers in the middle. This is a
perfect field for innovativeness in configuration to fulfill the practical prerequisites of the project.

The development of slender and flexible decks which open many possibilities for medium spans, including
competition with other bridge types; the application of cable-stayed bridges to multiple spans, which will certainly
have some importance for large projects; and, of course, the rapid increase in span length, in competition with
suspension bridges [8].

Pre-stressed concrete bridges are an effective technique for joining and linking very long spans. During the last
decade the length of cable stayed bridge is increased to 1000 m. Since cables are primary members in cable-stayed
bridge type, it is important for these cables to be well designed to be able to sustain stresses developed in bridge
members even under extreme loading scenarios. For this particular reason, various researches have conducted to
investigate multiple techniques in enhancing the behavior of this structural system, in which the desired
modification was executed at the code level.
This treatise aims to investigate the influence of deck concrete compressive strength on the behavior of cable-
stayed bridge. Six different deck compressive strength will be applied having the following values f_c^'= 25, 30, 35,
40, 45, 50 MPa.

2. Finite element modeling (FEM)

This analysis illustrates the effect of girder cross-section dimensions and concrete compressive strength of the
deck on the stresses developed in pre-stressed cables and maximum deflection occurred in the concrete deck,
different models created using ABAQUS [2] software. Eighteen models with three different girder profiles and
different deck stiffness will be generated using a non-linear static finite element analysis, then pre-tensioning forces
will be applied on cables. The design constants, elements and model description have been stated in the following
subsections.

2.1. Design constants

A doubly symmetrical cable-stayed bridge on its own major axes govern one main span of 500 m long and two
side spans of 250 m long each, will be employed. The bridge has two towers at each deck side, a total of four towers
of 100 m height which referred to main span to height ration of 5 to justify the most economical design for the
bridge. Typical pylons height is designed according to the tower to pylon ratio of two, so that piers height is 50 m.
Towers and pylons designed using 30 MPa conventional concrete of (5.5 m×3.5 m) cross-section dimensions, with
1.2 m^2 longitudinal reinforcement of I-shaped steel section (3.7 m depth× 2.3 m width ×0.15 m thickness),
reinforcement dimensions are chosen to satisfy same depth to width ration of section dimensions
(5.5⁄3.5=3.7⁄2.3=1.6). The deck consisting of four traffic lanes, two in each direction and pedestrian passage at both
344 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349
Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

bridge sides, deck width has been designed to be 25 m. The boundary conditions described using fixed support at
piers ends and pin support at deck ends.

The cables material is a seven-wire T15S1770 of 20 cm diameter, 165 GPa elastic modulus and 0.3 Poisson’s
ratio. Referred to cable-stayed bridge history the most distinguished cables layout is the double-plane semi fan
system, that supply best deck support. Six different concrete compressive strength of deck material are used as
follows fc'= 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 MPa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.15 and normal weight density of 2400 kg/m3with 0.25 m
thickness. Steel girders of G60 (fy=420 MPa), 0.3 Poisson’s ratio and 200 GPa young’s modulus with different
cross-section dimensions as shown in figure 1.

Profile of Model

Section I

Dimension Beam #1 Beam #2 Beam #3

݄(mm) 2340 2500 2800
ܾଵ (mm) 850 1000 1200
ܾଶ (mm) 850 1000 1200
‫ݐ‬ଵ (mm) 50 80 120
‫ݐ‬ଶ (mm) 50 80 120
‫ݐ‬ଷ (mm) 50 80 120

Beam

Fig. 1. Bridge details

 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349 345
4 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

2.2. Elements

2.2.1. Concrete Deck (Shell Element)

Thin shell element is convenient for simulating axi-symmetric geometries subjected to arbitrary loadings. The
advantage of using shell element is referring to that this property promote performance by reducing number degrees
of freedom to prevent large problems. However, shell element should be used for thin structures simulating only
because it doesn’t take rotation degrees of freedom into consideration, and the use of second-order shells is preferred
to achieve higher possible accuracy. A continuum shell homogeneous of 0.25 m thickness and five integration points
are used in this modeling. Shell concrete deck is meshing using standard element library and linear geometric order.

2.2.2. Girders and Cross Beams (Beam Element / B32)

Beams included in this treatise follows the classical Euler-Bernoulli assumptions, that plane sections remains
plane after bending, normal to beam neutral axis and un-deformed. The beam elements in ABAQUS [2]is defined
using I-shape profile. A cubic interpolation of B32 element type used in this assumption to satisfy large rotations but
small strains developed in this element type. This approach is also appropriate to simulate beams with large axial
strain and large rotations. Beams defined so that there satisfy Timoshenko beam theory and considered for thicker
beams where shear flexibility is significant. As a result, standard element library and quadratic geometric order with
3-node quadratic beam element (B32) will be generate for meshing the main girders and cross-beams.

2.2.3. Towers and Piers

Solid homogeneous type has been selected to define towers. Mesh used is standard element library, linear
geometric order, family of 3D stress and 8-node linear brick (C3D8R).

2.2.4. Cables (Truss Element / T3D2)

One-dimension truss element type is used to define cables which assumed to deform by axial pre-tensioning.
Cables are meshing using standard element, linear geometric and a 2-node linear 3-D truss element (T3D2).

Table 1. Details of simulated models.

Concrete
Cable Spacing (CS), Beam (B) Number of cables
Model Number Strength
m Number (Each side)
MPa
1 B1C25S11.11 25 22
2 B1C30S11.11 30 22
3 B1C35S11.11 35 22
Bridge 1 11.11 1
4 B1C40S11.11 40 22
5 B1C45S11.11 45 22
6 B1C50S11.11 50 22
7 B2C25S11.11 25 22
8 B2C30S11.11 30 22
9 B2C35S11.11 35 22
Bridge 2 11.11 2
10 B2C40S11.11 40 22
11 B2C45S11.11 45 22
12 B2C50S11.11 50 22
13 B3C25S11.11 25 22
14 B3C30S11.11 30 22
15 B3C35S11.11 35 22
Bridge 3 11.11 3
16 B3C40S11.11 40 22
17 B3C45S11.11 45 22
18 B3C50S11.11 50 22
346 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349
Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

2.3. Models

Table 1 shows three different models created to be analyzed, each model has different girder dimensions and
different concrete compressive strength, every girder profile is analyzed six times; these series create eighteen
different models. The cables form an angle of 22.7° with the deck to work more effectively. Cables horizontal
spacing are 11.11 m with total number of 22 cables. The deck supported on three I-steel beams. The total number of
cables in the model are eight times the number of cables in each side. Shell elements were used to define the
concrete deck; tie connections were used to connect the slab with steel frame; the steel frame consist of the steel
girders and cross beams. The cross girders have the same cross section dimensions as the steel girders, for
simplification, beam elements were used to represent the steel frame. The cables and girders are connected using tie
constraints, and the towers and cables are connected using tie constraints. The cables are represented using truss
elements.

2.3.1. Static Loading

In accordance to AASHTO [1], the load combination used for the static loading case is “Strength I”, which is equal
to:
Ǥ  ൌ ͳǤʹͷ ൈ Ǥ  ൅ ͳǤͷ ൈ Ǥ Ǥ  ൅ ͳǤ͹ͷ ൈ Ǥ  (1)
Table 2. The loads applied to the models.
Model Number D.L (Pa) S.D.L (Pa) L.L (Pa) T.L (Pa)
Cables Spacing = 11.11 m
Bridge 1 4137 5278.8 17794 44228.95
Bridge 2 7213 5278.8 17794 48073.95
Bridge 3 12291 5278.8 17794 54421.45
Note: T.L: Total load; D.L: Dead load; S.D.L: Superimposed dead load; L.L: live load.

Where T.L is the factored total load, D.L is the dead load, S.D.L is the superimposed dead load and L.L is the live
load. Table 2 illustrates the factored loads applied to the models. The static load applied as a pressure load on the
deck surface. A nonlinear analysis was performed to explicate for the nonlinear performance of the cables.

2.4. Pre-tensioning

The conventional “Zero-Displacement” method proposed by Wang et al.[11]was used to achieve the pre-
tensioning forces in the cables. Primarily, the towers were constrained from the vertical and horizontal movements,
then prestressing forces were applied to the cables until a zero vertical displacement at the center of the mid-span is
achieved. subsequently the towers were authorized to move vertically and horizontally. Ultimately, the prestressing
forces were adjusted until the vertical displacement at bridge midspan approximate to zero.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Static analysis

Table 3 represent the summery of static analysis results, and figure2shows the deflection due to static loading of
beam 1 results as a sample along the bridge before and after pre-tensioning. The maximum deflection occurred at
the middle of the bridge exceeds the limitation according to AASHTO [1]which allows deflection of 0.625 m
(L/800=500/800=0.625 m). In addition, the maximum cable stresses exceed the ultimate strength of the cables of
1770 MPa in some regions. Figure 3 illustrate a comparison between stress values for different beam profile.
 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349 347
6 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 3. Summary of Static Analysis Results.

Before Pre-tensioning After Pre-tensioning

Cable Concrete
Max Max
Model Number Spacing Strength Max stress Max stress
deflection deflection
(CS), m (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(m) (m)
1 B1C25S11.11 25 1239.23 8.081 371.77 0.211
2 B1C30S11.11 30 1244.26 8.038 373.28 0.210
3 B1C35S11.11 35 1253.03 7.984 375.91 0.209
Bridge 1 11.11
4 B1C40S11.11 40 1253.33 7.954 376.00 0.208
5 B1C45S11.11 45 1262.94 7.880 378.88 0.207
6 B1C50S11.11 50 1266.31 7.832 379.89 0.206
7 B2C25S11.11 25 1750.85 7.103 507.75 0.183
8 B2C30S11.11 30 1751.74 7.053 508.00 0.182
9 B2C35S11.11 35 1755.36 6.998 509.05 0.181
Bridge 2 11.11
10 B2C40S11.11 40 1755.53 6.935 509.10 0.180
11 B2C45S11.11 45 1763.14 6.910 511.31 0.179
12 B2C50S11.11 50 1765.59 6.872 512.02 0.178
13 B3C25S11.11 25 1858.8 6.309 520.46 0.162
14 B3C30S11.11 30 1863.27 6.275 521.72 0.161
15 B3C35S11.11 35 1866.33 6.162 522.57 0.160
Bridge 3 11.11
16 B3C40S11.11 40 1866.36 6.107 522.58 0.159
17 B3C45S11.11 45 1868.59 6.059 523.37 0.158
18 B3C50S11.11 50 1869.18 6.025 523.21 0.157

 
Before Pretens ioning Girder #1
0 0
0 200 400 6 00 800 100 0 0 200 400 6 00 800 1000
) )
(m m
(
n no
iot -5 it -5
ce c
lf lef
e e
D D

-10 -10
Bridge Leng th (m) Bridge Leng th (m)

girder #1 girder #2 girder #3 Before-pretensioning After-pretensioning

 
Girder #2 Girder #3
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
) )
(m (m
n
o n
it -5 o
tic -5
ce
lf
e
lef
D e
D

-10 -10
Bridge Length (m) Bridge Length (m)

Before-pretensioning After-pretensioning Before-pretensioning After-pretensioning

Fig. 2. Deflection Shape a long bridge length before and after pre-tensioning.
348 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349
Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

 
Max Cables Stres s v s. Girder Profile Max Cab les Stress vs . Girder Pro file After
Before Pre-tens ioning (Deck 50) Pre-ten sioning (Deck 50)

2000 1869.18 600.00

1765.59 512.02 523.21
ss 1266.31 ss 500 .00
1500 er 379.89
ret ts 400.0 0
s Girder #1 Girder #1
se se
l 100 0 l 300 .00
ba Girder #2 ba Girder #2
c c
xa Girder #3 xa 200.00 Girder #3
M 500 M
100.00
0 0.0 0

Fig. 3. Comparison between Stresses Values of Deck 50 MPa Grade for each beam Profile.

3.2. Maximum Vertical Deformations

Maximum displacement occurred at minimum concrete stiffness and minimum cross section dimensions of main
girder, it’s valued 8.081 m.

3.3. Maximum Cable Stresses

Maximum cable stress found at maximum concrete stiffness and maximum cross section dimensions of main
girder, it’s valued 1869.18 MPa. A comparison between deck grade and cable maximum developed stress was
shown in figure 4.
 
Cable Stress vs Deck Grade
2000
1800
1600
1400
ss
er 1200
tS
el 1000
b
a 800
C
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Deck Grade

Girder #1-B Girder #2-B Gird er #3-B

Girder #1-A Girder #2-A Gird er #3-A

Fig. 4. Comparison between Stresses Values of Different Deck Grade for each beam Profile. (B: Before Pre-tensioning and A: After Pre-
tensioning)

3.4. Optimum Deck Stiffness

The lowest maximum vertical displacement for static loading has been found with largest deck stiffness
according to the previous shown results. Therefore, the optimum deck grade is 50 MPa with a young’s modulus
equal to 36 GPa.
 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 44 (2020) 342–349 349
8 Ayah A. Alkhawaldeh and Rajai Al-Rousan/ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions and findings can be proposed from the present study:
1. The maximum stress found at maximum deck stiffness.
2. The maximum cable stress found at maximum girder cross section.
3. The deflection decreased dramatically with the increase of deck stiffness, the relationship between the vertical
displacement and deck stiffness is inverse.
4. The difference in vertical deflection approximately 5% between maximum and minimum deck grade.
5. The optimum deck grade is 50 MPa with young’s modulus equal 36 GPa.
6. The difference in cable stresses at same girder profile with different deck grade can be negligible.
7. The pre-tensioning of cables resulted in a decrease in cable stress for about 70% as well decrease in maximum
vertical deflection upon 97%.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the technical support provided by the Jordan University of Science and Technology.

References

[1] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. American Association ofStateHighway and Transportation Officials (2007).
[2] ABAQUS (2017) Documentation: ABAQUS theory manual, Elements.
[3] Bannazadeh, B., Zomorodian, Z. S., & Maghareh, M. R. (2012). A Study on Cable-Stayed Bridges. In Applied Mechanics and
Materials (Vol. 193, pp. 1113-1118). Trans Tech Publications.
[4] Bridge, L. M., & Bridge, R. U. (1973). CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE. PCI Journal, 69.
[5] Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of structural
engineering, 114(8), 1804-1826.
[6] Janjic, D., Pircher, M., & Pircher, H. (2003). Optimization of cable tensioning in cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 8(3),
131-137.
[7] Leonhardt, F. (1987). Cable stayed bridges with prestressed concrete. PCI Journal, 32(5), 52-80.
[8] Al-Rousan, R., Haddad, R. H., & Al Hijaj, M. A. (2014). Optimization of the economic practicability of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
cable-stayed bridge decks. Bridge Structures, 10(4), 129-143.
[9] Virlogeux, M. (1999). Recent evolution of cable-stayed bridges. Engineering structures, 21(8), 737-755.
[10] Tsai, W. T. (1988). Uniaxial compressional stress-strain relation of concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(9), 2133-2136.
[11] Wang PH, Tseng TC, Yang CG, Initial shape of cable-stayed bridges, Journal of Computers Structures 46 (1993) 1095–106.

View publication stats