Balang Island Bridge:

Planning & Engineering Design
[HAKI Webinar, Jakarta 20th April 2021]

FX Supartono
Team Leader, Balang Bridge Design
CEO, PT Tridi Membran Utama
Balang Island Bridge is a cable stayed concrete bridge having
main span length of 402 meters (total length: 804 meters)
connecting Tempadung (near Balikpapan) and Balang Island.
 SITE LOCATION

Balang
Island

Penajam
Paser Utara Balikpapan
 SITE LOCATION

Balang
Island

Balikpapan
 BASIC DESIGN 2004

Basic design by FX Supartono & Team

Basic Design by FX Supartono & Team

 DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 2010

DED by Anugerah - Hi-Way Indotek

- Hanata

DED by FX Supartono & Team

 DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 2014

DED by FX Supartono & Team

DED by FX Supartono & Team

 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED 2021

DED by FX Supartono & Team

Construction Completed 2021

DED by FX Supartono & Team

Construction Completed 2015
Why did we finally choose
a cable stayed bridge?
The main reason of changing the bridge type from suspension bridge to
cable stayed bridge was mainly due to much lower construction cost (huge
saving) by using 402 meters span of concrete cable stayed bridge (for the
main bridge) + the ordinary precast girders for the approach bridges.

Rp 1.39 Trillion Rp 3.05 Trillion

[Contract 2015] [Cost Estimate 2010]
However, if we choose the cable stayed bridge type with span length of
402 meters, one of the “technical difficulty” is that the pylon will be
standing in the sea water.
Fortunately, we can arrange the pylon’s location where the seabed is not too deep
so that is feasible to build the bridge’s foundation in an economic manner.

Seabed Depth: 11 - 26 m (in the pylon’s location)

As the seabed is < 30 m deep, it is still convenient to use bored piles
instead of a caisson type foundation.
Besides of that condition, the cable stayed bridge shows various advantages
than the suspension bridge, e.g.

CABLE STAYED BRIDGE SUSPENSION BRIDGE

The cable stayed bridge applies a self The suspension bridge uses an external
anchored system that is balanced in its anchor system that could be susceptible to
deck structure. instability due to the sub-soil condition.
Example of Kutai Kartanegara Bridge (Collapsed on 26 November 2011)

13.2 cm
9 cm

5 cm
61.6 cm

)
Other advantages:

CABLE STAYED BRIDGE SUSPENSION BRIDGE

The deck is “prestressed” by the stay cable
forces so that induces usually a more higher
stiffness and stability against the aero-
dynamic (wind) excitation than suspension
bridge with a same span length.
The long-span suspension bridges could be
more susceptible to vortex-induced vibration
due to aerodynamic (wind) forces.

Fv More
More M Flexible
Stiff
Fh
Other advantages:

CABLE STAYED BRIDGE SUSPENSION BRIDGE

Easier maintenance and replacement of stay The suspension bridge uses normally a
cables (parallel strand system). parallel wire cable that is not replaceable.
That’s why nowadays, the cable stayed bridge is more and more built for
long-span bridge having span length up to 1000 m, or even slightly > 1000 m
as shown below, particularly if there is no restriction on the pylon’s height at
the site.
Edong Bridge Stonecutters Bridge

1018m
926m

Sutong Bridge Russky Bridge 1104m

1088m
However, the cable stayed bridge has some disadvantages regarding the
pylon height and span length limitation:

CABLE STAYED BRIDGE SUSPENSION BRIDGE

 Pylon height is limited for example in the  Lower pylon height could be more
airport’s vicinity. preferable in some specific sites.

 At the time being, the economic span  The span length can be extended to
length is usually limited to 1000 m. more than 3000 m.
 Regarding the cost difference between a cable stayed bridge and a
suspension bridge, it is depending on many factors, but mainly depends
on the span length. If the main span length ≈ 800 meters, both type of
bridges show almost same amount of construction cost, as shown below in
the example of Buton-Muna Bridge (Project in 2021).
210m

141m
220.60m 753.60m 364.60m 183.15m 762.50m 251m
1,338.80m 1,196.65m

Rp 3.6 Trillion Rp 3.8 Trillion

[Cost Estimate 2021] [Cost estimate 2021]
Considering the various aspects as above mentioned, the Owner and the
Designer have finally chosen the Cable Stayed Concrete Bridge Type for
Balang Island Bridge.
 World Longest Cable Stayed Concrete Bridge

Longest Bridge Length Longest Span Length

SKARNSUNDET BR. 1010 m 240 530 240 1988-1991 SKARNSUNDET BR. 1010 m 240 530 240
ATLANTIC BRIDGE 990 m 230 530 230 2013-2019 ATLANTIC BRIDGE 990 m 230 530 230
VASCO DA GAMA BR. 826 m 203 420 203 1995-1998 SHANTOU BAY BRIDGE 760 m 154 452 154
BALANG ISLAND BR. 804 m 201 402 201 2015-2020 CARLOS F CASADO BR. 643.4 m 101.7 440 101.7

IROISE BRIDGE 800 m 200 400 200 1991-1994 HELGELAND BRIDGE 780 m 177. 5 425 177. 5
HELGELAND BRIDGE 780 m 177. 5 425 177. 5 1989-1991 VASCO DA GAMA BR. 826 m 203 420 203

WADI LEBAN BRIDGE 763 m 179 405 179 1993-1997 WADI LEBAN BRIDGE 763 m 179 405 179

SHANTOU BAY BRIDGE 760 m 154 452 154 1992-1995 BALANG ISLAND BR. 804 m 201 402 201
2nd WUHAN YANGTZE 760 m 180 400 180 1991-1995 IROISE BRIDGE 800 m 200 400 200
CARLOS F CASADO BR. 643.4 m 101.7 440 101.7 1981-1983 2nd WUHAN YANGTZE 760 m 180 400 180

SIDE-
SPAN
MAINSPAN SIDESPAN
Bridge Design Criteria
The design of a long-span bridge should merge various aspects
of human needs that has to satisfy at least the following design
criteria:
 Structural safety and stability
 Rideability (e.g. user comfort)
 Constructability in accordance with the
site condition
 Durability
 Inspectability & maintainability
 Economic
 Aesthetic
 Environmental friendly (green
construction using green materials)
The design of a long-span bridge should merge various aspects
of human needs that has to satisfy at least the following design
criteria:
 Structural safety and stability
Reliable  Rideability (e.g. user comfort)
 Constructability in accordance with the
site condition
 Durability
 Inspectability & maintainability
Sustainable  Economic
 Aesthetic
 Environmental friendly (green
construction using green materials)
Structural Design
Flow Chart
 Start

DESIGN CONCEPT & DESIGN CRITERIA

Geometry of the bridge
Arrangement of stay cables & specification
Cross section of pylons & decks

Preliminary calculation of cable forces (due to DL + SDL)

Cable stress check at “zero deflection” state

Stress check of
pylons, bridge deck, piers &
Modification
foundation due to DL+SDL at
“zero deflection”

A
 A

Construction stage analysis until Final CS

Cable force adjustments & stress check due to permanent loads

Permanent Loads:
Perform analysis due to Post CS + service loads DL, SDL, Stay Cable
Forces, Deck (Beam
& Slab) Prestressing,
Creep and Shrinkage.
Stress check
stay cables, pylons,
deck (beams & slab),
Modification
piers & foundation at
Serviceability
Service Loads: DL, SDL, Other Limit State
Permanent Loads, Vehicular Live
Loads, Braking Force, Thermal
Loads, Water Stream Pressure B
Loads, and other service loads.
 B

Deformation/
Modification deflection check at
Serviceability Limit
State

Dynamic analysis & calculation of

natural frequencies

Aerostatic & aerodynamic stability analysis

Seismic resistance analysis

Sections’ strength analysis (LRFD) at Ultimate Limit State

End
Design Concept
 Bridge Design Criteria
 Main Span Length
 Total Bridge Length
 Deck Width
 Navigation Clearance Height
 Pylon Height
 Pylon Shape
 Stay Cables Configuration
 Number of Stay Cables
: 402 m
: 804 m
: 22.4 m
: 27 m (above HWL)
: 108.75 meter (total height)
88.1 m (above top of edge beam)
: Inverted “Y” shape
: Semi-Fan type
: 2 x 2 x 2 x 21 stay cables
 Bridge Design Criteria

 Traffic Lanes : 2 x 2 Lanes x 3.5 m

 Inspection Lane :2x1m
 Max Longitudinal Gradient : 3.5%
 Deck Transverse Gradient : 2%
 Bearing Type : Spherical Bearing - Guided Longitudinal
Free Movable Type
 Damper Type : Viscous Damper
 Foundation Type : Bored Piles (Diameter: 2 m for Pylons)
 Seabed Depth at Pylon : 11 - 26 m
 Elevation Z (m)

21.0
23.0
25.0
27.0
29.0
31.0
33.0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
201 200
𝑧
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
Distance X (m)

450
· 3.517

475
500
525
550
32.962

575
603 600
Bridge Longitudinal Alignment

625
650
675
700
725
750
775
804 800
108.75m

1.60m 1m
2.96m

2.96m 1.24m 3.50m 3.50m 1m 3.50m 3.50m 1.24m 2.96m

1.86m 18.48m 1.86m
0.60m 0.60m

Bridge Deck Section

Pylon
Cast-in-place by shoring
Balanced cantilever
by using form traveler

Cast-in-place by shoring
 One side single
cantilever by using
form traveler

Increase the structural stability during the longest

cantilever construction stage, particularly against
the aerodynamic (wind) and seismic risk
 108.75m

70.5m 130.5m 402m 130.5m 70.5m

804m
A1 K1 P1 P2 K2 A2
Longitudinal Alignment

70.5m 130.5m 402m 130.5m 70.5m

804m
A1 K1 P1 P2 K2 A2
Deck Plan
108.75m
Problem of effectiveness due to much Problem of stress concentration at
more losses of prestressing force. the wall’s corner.
 Material Design Criteria

 Concrete Grade: fc’ = 45 MPa for bridge superstructure (pylons, edge

beams, cross beams and deck slab)
fc’ = 35 MPa for side piers, abutments and pile caps
fc’ = 35 MPa for bored piles

 Rebars’ Grade:
Type : Plain bar for  < 10 mm
Grade: BJTP-24 with fy = 240 MPa
Type : Deformed bar for   10 mm
Grade: BJTD-40 with fy = 400 MPa
 Material Design Criteria

Elastic Modulus of Concrete

 Ec = 4700√fc’  (MPa)

Elastic Modulus of Steel

 Es = 200000 MPa

Poisson’s ratio
 Poisson’s ratio is taken 0.2 for concrete and 0.3 for steel.
 Material Design Criteria

Allowable stress of concrete for prestressing at superstructure

 At prestress transfer:
Compressive (axial & flexural) = 0.60 x 36 MPa = 21.6 MPa
Tension (axial & flexural) = 0.25 x √36 MPa = 1.5 MPa
(Assumption: fci’ minimum at transfer = 0.80 fc’)

 At service state:
Compressive (axial & flexural) = 0.45 x 45 MPa = 20.25 MPa
Tension (axial & flexural) = 0.50 x √45 MPa = 3.35 MPa
 Material Design Criteria

Prestressing Strand:
 Type of strand : Uncoated stress-relieved 7-wire strand,
Ø 0.6” (15.2 mm), low relaxation
 Ultimate Strength fpu : 1860 MPa
 Yield Strength fpy : 1580 MPa
 Minimum Modulus of Elasticity : 195000 Mpa
 Maximum stress at transfer : 0.725 x 1860 MPa = 1350 MPa
 Effective stress at service : 0.6 x 1860 MPa = 1116 MPa
 Material Design Criteria

Prestressing Strand:

 Unit Weight γpu : 78.5 kN/m3

 Coef of thermal expansion ρt : 1.2 x 10-5/oC

 Friction & wobble coefficients : μ = 0.22

k = 0.003 [1/m’]
 Stay Cable Specification
 Cable type : Isotensioned parallel strand
 Strand type : 7-wire strand Ø15.2 mm, low relaxation
 Internal protection : Galvanized or epoxy coated (to be
coated on each wire)
 External protection : HDPE pipe filled with grease
 Anchorage protection : Anti-Corrosion Cap filled with wax
 Cable damping system : Internal damper HDPE Sheath
Grease

 Ultimate strength fpu : 1860 MPa Galvanized

Steel Wire

 Yield strength fpy : 1580 MPa

 Minimum modulus of elasticity : 195000 MPa
 Maximum allowable stress (in permanent state): 0.45 fpu
 PYLON
WAX/GREASE
ANCHOR CAP

Internal damper located SENSOR

E CABLE
at the extremity of the
WEDGE
guide pipe
LOAD CELL
(IF REQUIRED)

ADJUSTABLE
ANCHORAGE
BEARING PLATE
HDPE PIPE
CONNECTOR GUIDE PIPE

HDPE PIPE HDPE SHEATHED STRAND

COLLAR INTERNAL DAMPER

COLLAR
WATERPROOF CAP

INTERNAL DAMPER
EDGE BEAM
GUIDE PIPE

WAX / GREASE
BEARING PLATE
FIXED ANCHORAGE
ANCHOR CAP WEDGE
 PYLON
WAX/GREASE
ANCHOR CAP

SENSOR
E CABLE

WEDGE

LOAD CELL
(IF REQUIRED)

ADJUSTABLE
ANCHORAGE
BEARING PLATE
HDPE PIPE
CONNECTOR GUIDE PIPE

HDPE PIPE HDPE SHEATHED STRAND

COLLAR INTERNAL DAMPER

WATERPROOF CAP

INTERNAL DAMPER
External damper,
GUIDE PIPE
EDGE BEAM usually installed for
cable length > 250 m

WAX / GREASE
BEARING PLATE
FIXED ANCHORAGE
ANCHOR CAP WEDGE
Anti-Corrosion Cap filled-in with Wax
Static Analysis
For the static analysis under the gravity loads, we applied all fixed
boundary condition at the bottom of pile-caps for pylons, piers and
abutments (without taking into account the bored pile modeling).
Bearings for the edge beams were modeled as guided longitudinal free
movable type (by elastic link) except at the side piers that was modeled
as hinge type.
Structural Modeling
 Structural Modeling
[Midas Civil v.2012]

For a long-span bridge such as cable stayed bridge or suspension bridge,

the structural modeling should be in 3D so that the structural detailing can
be well modeled.
Longitudinal Free
Movable Bearing
Loop prestressing
Idealized Elastic Modulus of Stay Cables
 Idealized Elastic Modulus of Stay Cables

For the stay cables’ modulus of elasticity, because it is consisting of long

suspended cables (> 100 meters), the deflection of the cable due to its
own weight (we call it “sagging”) will affect the stiffness of the stay cables
to be non-linear. Therefore the stiffness of the stay cables needs to be
modified.

B B

f f→0

Source: Rene Walther [1988]

 Idealized Cable’s Stiffness

T
Ke Ksag

∆ ∆ K

∆ ∆ ∆ As the ratio f/L is sufficiently low (< 1/12),

the form of sagging can be considered as
a parabola. According to H.J. Ernst:
Equilibrium: T.f = wL2/8
K Energy Balance: T.ΔL2 = (2/3)wL.f
Stiffness: Ksag = T / ΔL2

K K

Source: Rene Walther [1988]

where:
Ke = Stay cable’s elastic stiffness (N/mm)
Ki = Idealized stay cable’s stiffness (N/mm)
L = Length of cable (m)
T = Initial pretension of stay cable (N)
Δ = Elongation of stay cable (mm)
A = Area of stay cable (mm2)
w = Weight of cable per unit length (N/mm)
 Idealized Cable’s Modulus of Elasticity

σ
Ee Esag

ε ε E

ε ε ε E

Then: If σ is considered varied between σlow & σup:

E [ 16μ2 / (1 + μ)4) ]

Source: Rene Walther [1988]

where:
Ee = Stay cable’s elastic modulus (N/mm2)
Ei = Idealized elastic modulus (N/mm2)
L = Length of cable (m)
σ = Initial pretension stress of stay cable (MPa)
ε = Deformation strain of stay cable (mm/mm)
A = Area of stay cable (mm2)
γ = Unit weight of stay cable (N/mm3)
μ = σlow / σup
σm = (σlow + σup) / 2
Preliminary Calculation of the Cable Forces
There are two basic methods for preliminarily calculation of the stay
cable forces:

 Semi-Manual Method
Assuming a simply supported condition in the edge beams at all
cable anchorage points, then use the equilibrium concept to
calculate the cable forces.

 Midas Civil Self-Iteration Method

Use Midas Civil software to provide self-iteration and to calculate
the unknown load factors (cable forces).
Semi-Manual Method
Assuming Simply Supported
on the Cable-Deck Joint Nodes
 SW+SDL Loads

Calculate the Support Reaction

Cable Force to be derived
from each Support Reaction
CFi

Ri CFi
αi Ri
CFi =
Sinαi
Ri
Midas Civil Self-Iteration Method
 Cable Force Diagram due to DL + SDL (kN)
[Midas Civil Self-Iteration]

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000
First Iteration

3000

2000

1000

0
S21

S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20

M21
 Result of cable force due to initial iteration (kN)
Cable Force Number of Cable Force Number of
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(kN) Strand (kN) Strand
ST1/SB1 2592 ST12/SB12 5157
ST2/SB2 2681 ST13/SB13 5640
ST3/SB3 2857 ST14/SB14 5925
ST4/SB4 2999 ST15/SB15 5765
ST5/SB5 3104 ST16/SB16 5517
ST6/SB6 3250 ST17/SB17 5281
ST7/SB7 3463 ST18/SB18 5412
ST8/SB8 3688 ST19/SB19 5656
ST9/SB9 3890 ST20/SB20 6054
ST10/SB10 4215 ST21/SB21 6336
ST11/SB11 4582
 Result of cable force due to initial iteration (kN)
Cable Force Number of Cable Force Number of
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(kN) Strand (kN) Strand
ST1/SB1 2592 29 *) ST12/SB12 5157 56
ST2/SB2 2681 30 ST13/SB13 5640 62
ST3/SB3 2857 31 ST14/SB14 5925 65
ST4/SB4 2999 35 ST15/SB15 5765 63
ST5/SB5 3104 37 ST16/SB16 5517 61
ST6/SB6 3250 37 ST17/SB17 5281 59
ST7/SB7 3463 38 ST18/SB18 5412 59
ST8/SB8 3688 42 ST19/SB19 5656 62
ST9/SB9 3890 44 ST20/SB20 6054 66
ST10/SB10 4215 46 ST21/SB21 6336 69
ST11/SB11 4583 50 *) Use for example 0.35 fpu for the 1st approx.
 Result of cable force due to initial iteration (kN)
Cable Force Number of Cable Force Number of
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(kN) Strand (kN) Strand
MT1/MB1 2454 MT12/MB12 4204
MT2/MB2 2480 MT13/MB13 4517
MT3/MB3 2548 MT14/MB14 4662
MT4/MB4 2665 MT15/MB15 4865
MT5/MB5 2937 MT16/MB16 5201
MT6/MB6 2992 MT17/MB17 5507
MT7/MB7 3175 MT18/MB18 5762
MT8/MB8 3429 MT19/MB19 6078
MT9/MB9 3669 MT20/MB20 6522
MT10/MB10 3801 MT21/MB21 7052
MT11/MB11 3952
 Result of cable force due to initial iteration (kN)
Cable Force Number of Cable Force Number of
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(kN) Strand (kN) Strand
MT1/MB1 2454 27 *) MT12/MB12 4204 49
MT2/MB2 2480 27 MT13/MB13 4517 50
MT3/MB3 2548 31 MT14/MB14 4662 55
MT4/MB4 2665 34 MT15/MB15 4865 57
MT5/MB5 2937 35 MT16/MB16 5201 59
MT6/MB6 2992 36 MT17/MB17 5507 61
MT7/MB7 3175 38 MT18/MB18 5762 64
MT8/MB8 3429 40 MT19/MB19 6078 67
MT9/MB9 3669 42 MT20/MB20 6522 71
MT10/MB10 3801 44 MT21/MB21 7052 77
MT11/MB11 3952 47 *) Use for example 0.35 fpu for the 1st approx.
 Initial calculation of stay cable’s dimension
Length Area Length Area
Stay Cable Strand Stay Cable Strand
(mm) (mm2) (mm) (mm2)
ST1/SB1 29 51102 4060 MT1/MB1 27 50028 3780
ST2/SB2 30 56510 4200 MT2/MB2 27 54956 3780
ST3/SB3 31 62836 4340 MT3/MB3 31 60889 4340
ST4/SB4 35 69847 4900 MT4/MB4 34 67577 4760
ST5/SB5 37 77338 5180 MT5/MB5 35 74801 4900
ST6/SB6 37 85188 5180 MT6/MB6 36 82426 5040
ST7/SB7 38 93324 5320 MT7/MB7 38 90369 5320
ST8/SB8 42 101617 5880 MT8/MB8 40 98498 5600
ST9/SB9 44 110071 6160 MT9/MB9 42 106796 5880
ST10/SB10 46 118652 6440 MT10/MB10 44 115242 6160
ST11/SB11 50 127334 7000 MT11/MB11 47 123803 6580
ST12/SB12 56 136098 7840 MT12/MB12 49 132455 6860
ST13/SB13 62 144929 8680 MT13/MB13 50 141184 7000
ST14/SB14 65 153814 9100 MT14/MB14 55 149974 7700
ST15/SB15 63 162741 8820 MT15/MB15 57 158813 7980
ST16/SB16 61 171706 8540 MT16/MB16 59 167695 8260
ST17/SB17 59 180703 8260 MT17/MB17 61 176616 8540
ST18/SB18 59 189761 8260 MT18/MB18 64 185604 8960
ST19/SB19 62 198820 8680 MT19/MB19 67 194596 9380
ST20/SB20 66 207865 9240 MT20/MB20 71 203615 9940
ST21/SB21 69 216915 9660 MT21/MB21 77 212656 10780
 Result of cable stress due to initial iteration

Stress Stress
Stay Cable Stress Ratio Stay Cable Stress Ratio
(MPa) (MPa)
ST1/SB1 638 0.34 ST12/SB12 658 0.35
ST2/SB2 638 0.34 ST13/SB13 650 0.35
ST3/SB3 658 0.35 ST14/SB14 651 0.35
ST4/SB4 612 0.33 ST15/SB15 654 0.35
ST5/SB5 599 0.32 ST16/SB16 646 0.35
ST6/SB6 627 0.34 ST17/SB17 639 0.34
ST7/SB7 651 0.35 ST18/SB18 655 0.35
ST8/SB8 627 0.34 ST19/SB19 652 0.35
ST9/SB9 631 0.34 ST20/SB20 655 0.35
ST10/SB10 655 0.35 ST21/SB21 656 0.35
ST11/SB11 655 0.35
 Result of cable stress due to initial iteration

Stress Stress
Stay Cable Stress Ratio Stay Cable Stress Ratio
(MPa) (MPa)
MT1/MB1 649 0.35 MT12/MB12 613 0.33
MT2/MB2 656 0.35 MT13/MB13 645 0.35
MT3/MB3 587 0.32 MT14/MB14 605 0.33
MT4/MB4 560 0.30 MT15/MB15 610 0.33
MT5/MB5 599 0.32 MT16/MB16 630 0.34
MT6/MB6 594 0.32 MT17/MB17 645 0.35
MT7/MB7 597 0.32 MT18/MB18 643 0.35
MT8/MB8 612 0.33 MT19/MB19 648 0.35
MT9/MB9 624 0.34 MT20/MB20 656 0.35
MT10/MB10 617 0.33 MT21/MB21 654 0.35
MT11/MB11 601 0.32
Construction Stage 
Analysis
As the bridge will be built in a segmental way, therefore a construction stage
analysis is necessary to be carried out during the engineering design, in
order to make sure that all stresses arose at the edge beams and pylons
are safe during every steps of the construction phase.
However, if the stress in one stage
is exceeding the allowable stress,
adjustments on the cable forces
and deck’s prestressing (add
temporary prestress if needed)
should be carried out, to assure that
all sections of the edge beams and
pylons are safe to withstand the
stresses during construction stages
until closure of the deck.
Bridge Deck Closure’s Position
SIDE CLOSURE
3m

MIDDLE CLOSURE
6m

CENTER AXIS
OF THE BRIDGE
One of the most difficult process in the construction
stage analysis is how to model accurately and to
adjust the cable forces after movement of the Form
Traveler (underslung) from one segment to another
segment during cantilever process. Furthermore,
before pouring the middle closure, one Form Traveler
should be uninstalled or repositioned, on which the
removal of its weight (+ 2500 kN) from the model may
cause a heavy stress variation in the stay cables and
the bridge deck.
Before modeling the construction stages, we must define all steps of the construction
stages, starting from the construction of lower pylon, pouring of pylon’s main cross beam
and perform its prestressing, the upper pylon, following by pouring of the deck segmen
#1 “pier table” (using shoring), fixing the pier table, then continues with erection of the
form traveler, construction of the bridge deck by segmental cantilever method using the
form traveler, until completion of the middle closure, and finally dismantling the travelers.
For example, some steps of the construction stages can be defined as follows:
 Construction of the deck segment #1 (pier table) using shoring
 Install and tensioning the prestress tendons in the edge beam at pier table
 Install and tensioning the stay cable #1 at pier table
 Install the form traveler under the pier table (underslung) for pouring preparation of the deck segment #2
 Install and tensioning the stay cable #2 (phase 1, partial force) to hang up the form traveler for deck segment #2
 Pouring the concrete on the deck segment #2
 Tensioning the prestress tendons in the edge beam of segment #2
 Transfer the stay cable #2 from the traveler to the bottom of edge beam #2 and then tensioning (phase 2, full force)
 Moving the form traveler to be under segment #2 for pouring preparation of the deck segment #3
 Install and tensioning the stay cable #3 (phase 1, partial force) to hang up the form traveler for deck segment #3
 Pouring the concrete on the deck segment #3
 Tensioning the prestress tendons in the edge beam of segment #3
 Transfer the stay cable #3 from the traveler to the bottom of edge beam #3 and then tensioning (phase 2, full force)
 and so forth
Before closure: FT = Form Traveler

FT2
FT1

After closure & after removal

of the form travelers
R2
R1
It was like being applied a “virtual
reaction force” on the bridge deck after
removal of the form travelers
As the form traveler has a very heavy weight (+ 2500 kN), the installation and
moving of the form traveler under the bridge deck during construction will cause
an important variation of stresses at the deck and the stay cable forces.
Therefore, in each step of the construction stage, the stay cable force should be
defined to make balancing with the segment’s concrete self weight and also the
traveler’s weight. In the same time, the variation of concrete deck stresses (in all
segments) should be always checked to make sure that it doesn’t exceed the
allowable concrete stress
in a temporary state. The
cable force should be
always adjusted in order to
assure the safety of stress
level in the bridge deck as
well as in the pylons and
the stay cables.
 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
S21

(kN)
S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20
Beam Stress & Cable Forces After Erection of Deck #8

M21
Pylon Stress After Erection of Deck and Cables S8 & M8
 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
S21

(kN)
S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20
Beam Stress & Cable Forces After Erection of Deck #13

M21
Pylon Stress After Erection of Deck and Cables S13 & M13
 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
S21

(kN)
S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20
Beam Stress & Cable Forces After Erection of Deck #21

M21
Pylon Stress After Erection of Deck and Cables S21 & M21
Cable Force Diagram After Closure & Final Tuning (kN)
In “Zero Deflection State” [Final CS] due to Permanent Loads

8000

7000
Final CS
6000

5000

4000
Final CS

3000

2000

1000

0
S21

S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20

M21
Cable Force Diagram After Closure & Final Tuning (kN)
[Adjusted from Preliminary Iteration to Final CS]

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 First Iteration

Final CS
3000

2000

1000

0
S21

S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20

M21
Cable Forces due to Permanent Loads (kN) at Final CS
Cable Force Number of Cable Force Number of
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(kN) Strand (kN) Strand
ST1/SB1 2767 27 ST12/SB12 5043 55
ST2/SB2 2828 27 ST13/SB13 5518 59
ST3/SB3 2992 31 ST14/SB14 5798 64
ST4/SB4 3139 35 ST15/SB15 5706 61
ST5/SB5 3300 37 ST16/SB16 5540 59
ST6/SB6 3429 37 ST17/SB17 5486 59
ST7/SB7 3567 38 ST18/SB18 5505 59
ST8/SB8 3786 42 ST19/SB19 5612 59
ST9/SB9 3975 44 ST20/SB20 5841 61
ST10/SB10 4155 46 ST21/SB21 6104 69
ST11/SB11 4477 50
Cable Forces due to Permanent Loads (kN) at Final CS
Cable Force Number of Cable Force Number of
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(kN) Strand (kN) Strand
MT1/MB1 2594 27 MT12/MB12 4432 49
MT2/MB2 2627 27 MT13/MB13 4594 50
MT3/MB3 2781 31 MT14/MB14 4772 55
MT4/MB4 2848 34 MT15/MB15 4977 57
MT5/MB5 3061 35 MT16/MB16 5273 59
MT6/MB6 3198 36 MT17/MB17 5595 61
MT7/MB7 3342 38 MT18/MB18 5890 64
MT8/MB8 3605 40 MT19/MB19 6242 67
MT9/MB9 3845 42 MT20/MB20 6708 69
MT10/MB10 4063 44 MT21/MB21 7280 73
MT11/MB11 4199 47
 Cable Stress (MPa) & Stress Ratio at Final CS
Stress Stress Ratio Stress Stress Ratio
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(MPa) Final CS (MPa) Final CS
ST1/SB1 732.84 0.39 ST12/SB12 654.72 0.35
ST2/SB2 747.72 0.40 ST13/SB13 667.74 0.36
ST3/SB3 690.06 0.37 ST14/SB14 647.28 0.35
ST4/SB4 639.84 0.34 ST15/SB15 667.74 0.36
ST5/SB5 637.98 0.34 ST16/SB16 671.46 0.36
ST6/SB6 662.16 0.36 ST17/SB17 664.02 0.36
ST7/SB7 669.6 0.36 ST18/SB18 665.88 0.36
ST8/SB8 643.56 0.35 ST19/SB19 678.9 0.37
ST9/SB9 645.42 0.35 ST20/SB20 684.48 0.37
ST10/SB10 645.42 0.35 ST21/SB21 632.4 0.34
ST11/SB11 639.84 0.34
 Cable Stress (MPa) & Stress Ratio at Final CS
Stress Stress Ratio Stress Stress Ratio
Stay Cable Stay Cable
(MPa) Final CS (MPa) Final CS
MT1/MB1 686 0.37
MT12/MB12 645 0.35
MT2/MB2 696 0.37
MT13/MB13 657 0.35
MT3/MB3 642 0.35
MT14/MB14 619 0.33
MT4/MB4 599 0.32
MT15/MB15 623 0.34
MT5/MB5 625 0.34
MT16/MB16 638 0.34
MT6/MB6 634 0.34
MT17/MB17 655 0.35
MT7/MB7 629 0.34
MT18/MB18 657 0.35
MT8/MB8 644 0.35
MT19/MB19 666 0.36
MT9/MB9 655 0.35
MT20/MB20 694 0.37
MT10/MB10 660 0.36
MT21/MB21 712 0.38
MT11/MB11 638 0.34
 Result of Internal Forces & Stresses due to
Permanent Loads

Based on the result of preliminary defined cable forces and the

adjustments during construction stage analysis, the internal forces and
stresses of the edge beam (deck) and pylons are shown here-in after,
under the total Permanent Loads, i.e. DL (Dead Loads), SDL (Super-
imposed Dead Loads), Stay Cable Forces, Edge Beam’s Prestressing,
Deck Slab’s Prestressing, Creep and Shrinkage.
A1 A1 A1
A2 A2 A2
A3 A3 A3
A4 A4 A4
B1 B1 B1 B1
B2 B2 B2 B2
B3 B3 B3 B3
B4 B4 B4 B4
D1 D1 A5 A5 D1 D1
D2 D2 A6 A6 D2 D2
A7 A7
A8 A8
B5 B5
B6 B6
B7 B7
B8 B8
C1 C1
C2 C2
C3 C3
C4 C4
C5 C5
C6 C6
C7 C7

70500 130500 402000 130500 70500

804000
A1 K1 P1 P2 K2 A2
Edge Beam & Deck Slab Prestressing

70.5m 130.5m 402m 130.5m 70.5m

804m
A1 K1 P1 P2 K2 A2
Deck Plan
 A1 A3 B1 B3 A1 A3

A1 A3

B1 B3

B2 B4

A2 A4 A2 A4 B2 B4 A2 A4

A1

A1 B1 B2 A2
A1 B1 B2 A2 A1 B1 B2 A2 A1 B1 B2 A2

A3 B3 B4 A4
A3 B3 B4 A4 A3 B3 B4 A4 A3 B3 B4 A4

SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION

0+0.000 0+4.500 0+10.500 0+13.500

A1
B1 B2
A2
A1 B1 B2 A2 A1
B1 B2
A2 A1 B1 B2 A2 Edge Beam
A3 A4 B3 B4
Prestressing Cables
Arrangement
B3 B4 A3 B3 B4 A4 A3 A4 A3 B3 B4 A4

SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION

0+3.000 0+7.500 0+12.000 0+16.500
 Cross Beam Prestressing
1.60m 1m
2.96m

2.96m 1.24m 3.50m 3.50m 1m 3.50m 3.50m 1.24m 2.96m

1.86m 18.48m 1.86m
0.60m 0.60m
Creep Coefficient According to CEB-FIP 2010 (fc’ = 45 MPa
and RH = 70%) for 1000 days dan 10000 days
Shrinkage Strain According to CEB-FIP 2010 (fc’ = 45 MPa
and RH = 70%) for 1000 days dan 10000 days
Axial Force Diagram in the Bridge Deck (kN)
Shear Force Diagram in the Bridge Deck (kN)
Bending Moment Diagram in the Bridge Deck (kN.m)
Axial Force Diagram in the Pylon (kN)
Shear Force Diagram in the Pylon (kN)
Bending Moment Diagram in the Pylon (kN.m)
Stress in the Deck due to Combined Forces
at Permanent Loading State (MPa)
 Refined Finite Element Analysis
Deck Slab at Middle Closure
1
NODAL SOLUTION
JUL 4 2013
STEP=1 07:48:17
SUB =1
TIME=1

The deck slab at

S1 (AVG) MX
DMX =.229897
SMN =-510935
SMX =.769E+07
middle closure
shows generally a
MN
principal tensile
stress of 1 - 2 MPa
and a principle
compressive stress
of < 7 MPa.

-.200E+07 0 .200E+07 .400E+07 .600E+07

- 100E+07 100E+07 300E+07 500E+07 700E+07
Stress in the Pylon due to Axial Force Only (MPa)

-6.1 MPa

-2.9 MPa -7.4 MPa

Stress in the Pylon due to Axial Force Only (MPa)

-7.5 MPa
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
at Permanent Loading State (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
at Permanent Loading State (MPa)
 Structural Analysis due 
to Service Loads at 
Serviceability Limit State
 Internal Forces & Stresses at Service Limit State

Based on the result of Post CS cable forces and members stress

level, the next step is to analyze the internal forces and stresses in all
bridge components, i.e. edge beams, cross beams, pylons,
foundation, etc, under the total Service Loads consisting of DL (Dead
Loads), SDL (Super-imposed Dead Loads), Other Permanent Loads,
Vehicular Live Loads, Braking Force, Thermal Loads, Water Stream
Pressure Loads, and other related service loads.
Loading criteria and its combination was defined in accordance with
the Indonesian Loading Standard RSNI T-02-2005.
Traffic loads such as UDL and KEL as well as the truck loads were
modeled using moving load feature in Midas Civil.
Traffic Loads Defined Manually (Load Case 1)

Loading Unit: kN/m & kN

Traffic Loads Defined Manually (Load Case 2)

Loading Unit: kN/m & kN

Traffic Loads Defined Manually (Load Case 3)

Loading Unit: kN/m & kN

 Cable Force Diagram due to Service Loads (kN)

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000
Final CS
4000

3000
Service
minimum
2000
Service
1000 maximum
0
S21

S20

S19

S18

S17

S16

S15

S14

S13

S12

S11

S10

S9

S8

S7

S6

S5

S4

S3

S2

S1

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20

M21
 Stay Cable Stress at Minimum Service Limit State
Minimum Minimum
Stress Stress Ratio Stress Stress Ratio
Stay Cable Service Stay Cable Service
(MPa) Final CS (MPa) Final CS
Force (kN) Force (kN)
ST21/SB21 5902 612 0.33 ST10/SB10 3984 619 0.33
ST20/SB20 5633 660 0.36 ST9/SB9 3830 621 0.33
ST19/SB19 5378 651 0.35 ST8/SB8 3669 625 0.34
ST18/SB18 5225 632 0.34 ST7/SB7 3477 653 0.35
ST17/SB17 5165 625 0.34 ST6/SB6 3347 645 0.35
ST16/SB16 5190 629 0.34 ST5/SB5 3198 618 0.33

ST15/SB15 5342 625 0.34 ST4/SB4 2994 612 0.33

ST14/SB14 5443 608 0.33 ST3/SB3 2825 651 0.35
ST13/SB13 5217 632 0.34 ST2/SB2 2657 703 0.38

ST12/SB12 4793 623 0.34 ST1/SB1 2585 684 0.37

ST11/SB11 4273 610 0.33
 Stay Cable Stress at Minimum Service Limit State
Minimum Minimum
Stress Stress Ratio Stress Stress Ratio
Stay Cable Service Stay Cable Service
(MPa) Final CS (MPa) Final CS
Force (kN) Force (kN)
MT1/MB1 2398 634 0.34 MT12/MB12 4361 636 0.34
MT2/MB2 2439 645 0.35 MT13/MB13 4537 647 0.35
MT3/MB3 2597 599 0.32 MT14/MB14 4726 614 0.33
MT4/MB4 2685 564 0.3 MT15/MB15 4934 618 0.33
MT5/MB5 2927 597 0.32 MT16/MB16 5218 632 0.34
MT6/MB6 3084 612 0.33 MT17/MB17 5518 645 0.35
MT7/MB7 3239 608 0.33 MT18/MB18 5778 645 0.35
MT8/MB8 3510 627 0.34 MT19/MB19 6081 649 0.35
MT9/MB9 3755 638 0.34 MT20/MB20 6485 671 0.36
MT10/MB10 3978 645 0.35 MT21/MB21 6967 683 0.37
MT11/MB11 4119 627 0.34
 Stay Cable Stress at Maximum Service Limit State
Maximum Maximum
Stress Stress Ratio Stress Stress Ratio
Stay Cable Service Stay Cable Service
(MPa) Final CS (MPa) Final CS
Force (kN) Force (kN)
ST21/SB21 7302 755 0.41 ST10/SB10 5015 779 0.42
ST20/SB20 6911 809 0.44 ST9/SB9 4799 779 0.42
ST19/SB19 6663 807 0.43 ST8/SB8 4568 777 0.42
ST18/SB18 6576 796 0.43 ST7/SB7 4264 802 0.43
ST17/SB17 6575 796 0.43 ST6/SB6 4085 789 0.42
ST16/SB16 6641 804 0.43 ST5/SB5 3916 755 0.41
ST15/SB15 6852 802 0.43 ST4/SB4 3683 751 0.4
ST14/SB14 6999 781 0.42 ST3/SB3 3449 794 0.43
ST13/SB13 6621 802 0.43 ST2/SB2 3170 839 0.45
ST12/SB12 6068 789 0.42 ST1/SB1 3019 798 0.43

ST11/SB11 5410 774 0.42

 Stay Cable Stress at Maximum Service Limit State
Maximum Maximum
Stress Stress Ratio Stress Stress Ratio
Stay Cable Service Stay Cable Service
(MPa) Final CS (MPa) Final CS
Force (kN) Force (kN)
MT1/MB1 2839 751 0.4 MT12/MB12 5430 792 0.43
MT2/MB2 2961 783 0.42 MT13/MB13 5610 802 0.43
MT3/MB3 3230 744 0.4 MT14/MB14 5879 763 0.41
MT4/MB4 3377 709 0.38 MT15/MB15 6116 766 0.41
MT5/MB5 3634 742 0.4 MT16/MB16 6444 779 0.42
MT6/MB6 3837 761 0.41 MT17/MB17 6791 796 0.43
MT7/MB7 4053 763 0.41 MT18/MB18 7118 794 0.43
MT8/MB8 4379 781 0.42 MT19/MB19 7491 798 0.43
MT9/MB9 4676 796 0.43 MT20/MB20 7944 822 0.44
MT10/MB10 4947 804 0.43 MT21/MB21 8520 833 0.45
MT11/MB11 5152 783 0.42
Axial Force Diagram in the Bridge Deck (kN)
Shear Force Diagram in the Bridge Deck (kN)
Bending Moment Diagram in the Bridge Deck (kN.m)
Axial Force Diagram in the Pylon (kN)
Shear Force Diagram in the Pylon (kN)
Bending Moment Diagram in the Pylon (kN.m)
Stress in the Deck due to Combined Forces
at Service Limit State (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
at Service Limit State (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
at Service Limit State (MPa)
Stress Check on the 
Pylon’s Stay Cables 
Anchorage Zone
The stay cables’ anchorage zone at the pylon is one of
the critical points to be checked at Service Limit State.
We have carried out a particular stress check analysis
in this area by Finite Element Method using ANSYS
Software, which was performed at Tongji University,
Shanghai.
Front Wall
Side Wall

Z
Y X
 Principal Stress at the Front Wall
1
NODAL SOLUTION
JUL 15 2013
STEP=1
19:50:46
SUB =1
TIME=1
S1 (AVG)
DMX =.840E-03
SMN =-.890E+07
Only a few parts of
SMX =.282E+08
the front wall show a
principal tensile
stress of 2 - 3 MPa
and a principle
MN
compressive stress
MX
of < 10 MPa.

-.200E+07 666667 .333E+07 .600E+07 .867E+07

-666667 .200E+07 .467E+07 .733E+07 .100E+08
 Principal Stress at the Side Wall
1
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1 JUL 15 2013
SUB =1 20:11:52
TIME=1
S1 (AVG)
DMX =.777E-03
SMN =-.890E+07
SMX =.230E+08

MN

MX

-.200E+07 0 .200E+07 .400E+07 .600E+07

-.100E+07 .100E+07 .300E+07 .500E+07 .700E+07
 Deflection Control at 
Serviceability Limit State
 Bridge Deck’s Deflection due to Traffic Loads (mm)

Maximum deck’s deflection due to traffic load = 437.4 mm (OK)

Allowable deck’s deflection due to traffic load = L/800 = 502 mm
Pylon’s Deflection due to Total Service Load (mm)

Pylon’s deflection due to Permanent

Loads = 155.89 mm

Pylon’s deflection due to Traffic Load =

109.56 mm

Total pylon’s deflection due to Service

Load = 265.45 mm

Allowable pylon’s deflection = H/400 =

271 mm (OK)
Uplift Tendency at the Position of Side Piers & Abutments
Proposed Counter Weight at the Side Piers & Abutments

CONCRETE COUNTER WEIGHT CONCRETE COUNTER WEIGHT PYLON P1

AT ABUTMENT A1 AT PIER K1

201m
4.50m 3.00m x 22 = 66m 3.00m x 42 = 126m 4.50m
Structural Dynamic 
Analysis
 Free Vibration Dynamic Analysis

The model used for the dynamic analysis was 3D model in

order to obtain a clearer overview on the dynamic behavior
of the structure, both longitudinally and laterally.
An accurate analysis of natural frequencies and modal
shapes on a cable stayed bridge is very important, not only
for the study of the aerodynamic stability effects, but also
for other transient loads’ excitation such as seismic
response and traffic loads.
Completed Bridge Model
Mode Shape 1 (f = 0.295 Hz)
Mode Shape 2 (f = 0.320 Hz)
 Mode Shape 2
by Midas Civil v.2021
Mode Shape 3 (f = 0.392 Hz)
Mode Shape 6 (f = 0.663 Hz)
 Mode Shape 1 - 10 at Service State
Completed Bridge State
Mode Frequency [Hz] Mode shape type
1 0.295 First order vertical bending of the deck
2 0.320 Longitudinal drift
3 0.392 First order lateral bending of the deck
4 0.398 Longitudinal drift
5 0.558 Second order vertical bending of the deck
6 0.663 First order torsion of the deck
7 0.697 Longitudinal drift
8 0.742 Third order vertical bending of the deck
9 0.799 First order antisym vertical bending of the deck
10 0.928 Fourth order vertical bending of the deck
Longest Single Cantilever State
 Mode Shape 1 - 10 at Longest Cantilever State
Construction Stage
Mode Frequency [Hz] Mode shape type
1 0.284 First order vertical bending of the deck
2 0.302 First order lateral bending of the deck
3 0.490 Second order lateral bending of the deck
4 0.655 First order torsion of the deck
5 0.710 Second order vertical bending of the deck
6 0.829 Third order vertical bending of the deck
7 0.986 Fourth order vertical bending of the deck
8 1.186 Second order torsion of the deck
9 1.265 Longitudinal drift
10 1.279 Third order torsion of the deck
 Undeformed State

Mode 1
Vertical Bending
fv = 0.295 Hz

Mode 6 Torsion
ft = 0.663 Hz
 First Checking of Aerodynamic Susceptibility

Based on the results of the free vibration frequencies, the ratio of torsional
frequency to vertical bending frequency is:

.
R 2.247 2.0
.

This is the first check point for the aerodynamic susceptibility against
flutter risk at completed bridge state (service state). According to Jacques
Mathivat [1979, Eyrolles French Edition], the bridge structure shows a low
susceptibility, and can be considered as satisfied the aerodynamic
stability criteria. However, a Section Model Wind Tunnel Test should be
recommended in order to confirm a more reliable level of aerodynamic
stability.
 Aerostatic & 
Aerodynamic Analysis
Aerostatic Effect
 Static Wind Effect [Aerostatic]

Wind
FD = ½ ρ Vg2 CD H
Vg = Gv · Vd
where:
FD = wind load at the same direction of wind (N/m)
ρ = mass density of air, usually taken as 1.25 (kg/m3)
Vg = geotropic wind speed at the bridge deck height z (m/sec)
Vd = design wind speed at the bridge deck height z (m/sec)
CD = drag coefficient, defined by Wind Tunnel Test or according to the Code
H = depth of the deck including railing fence for service state (m)
Gv = geotropic wind coefficient
 Design Wind Speed

Wind speed Bridge Deck Pylon

Basic wind speed (m/sec) 30.00 30.00

Soil surface coefficient α 0.16 0.16

Design height z (meter) 32.96 70.04

Design wind speed at the height z

36.31 40.96
Vd = Vs10 (z/10)α (m/sec)
Design wind speed at construction stage
= η Vd (m/sec), η is a reduction factor 30.50 34.41
(return period of 10 years, η = 0.84)
 Static Design Wind Load
Design wind load on the bridge deck Completed Bridge Construction Stage
Design wind speed Vd (m/det) 36.31 30.50
Average height of deck section H (meter) 4.10 2.60
Drag coefficient CD (Indonesian Code / RSNI) 1.50 1.50
Drag coefficient CD (China Code) 1.68 1.68
Drag coefficient CD (Tsingsa River Bridge) 1.63 1.36
Drag coefficient CD (Ming River Bridge) 1.53 －
Geotropic wind speed Vg (m/sec), GV = 1.22 44.30 37.21
Static wind load FD (kN/m), CD=1.50 7.54 3.37

Design wind load on the pylon Completed Bridge Construction Stage

Design wind speed Vd (m/sec) 40.96 34.41
Average width of pylon B (meter) 5.9 5.9
Drag coefficient CD (China Code) 2.10 2.10
Geotropic wind speed Vg (m/sec), GV = 1.22 49.97 41.98
Static wind load FD (kN/m) 19.34 13.65
Wind Load Distribution in the Bridge Deck
Load Case 1
Wind Load Distribution in the Bridge Deck
Load Case 2
Wind Load Distribution in the Pylon
Load Case 1 & 2
Wind Load Distribution in the Pylon
Stress in the Deck due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Static Wind Loads (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Static Wind Loads (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Static Wind Loads (MPa)
Aerodynamic Effect
 Aerodynamic Wind Effect

Fv
M
Fh

Under aerodynamic wind attack, the long-span bridges are usually susceptible
on the following risks:
 Limited Amplitute Response such as vortex-induced oscillations
 Divergent amplitude response such as flutter
Illustration of Flutter Phenomenon on the Bridge Deck
z Wind

Lift
t
θ
 Aerodynamic Susceptibility
In this analysis, we verified the aerodynamic susceptibility parameter Pb, which
was derived to categorize the level of susceptibility to aerodynamic excitation
by using the formula in accordance to BSI 2001 BD 49/01 “Design Rules for
Aerodynamic Effects on Bridges”:

𝜌𝑏 16𝑉
𝑃
𝑚 𝑏𝐿𝑓
where:
ρ = mass density of air (kg/m3)
b = overall width of the bridge deck (m)
m = mass per unit length of the bridge deck (kg/m3)
Vr = hourly mean wind speed, in our case was taken as Vd (m/sec)
L = length of the relevant maximum span of the bridge (meter)
fB = natural frequency in vertical bending (Hz)
 Aerodynamic Parameters
Parameter Description Value
Design wind speed (Vd) Completed bridge condition [m/s] 36.31
CS Design wind speed (Vd) Construction stage [m/s] 30.50
Bridge deck width (B) [meter] 23.40
Deck half-width (B/2) [meter] 11.70
Air density (ρ) [kg/m3] 1.25
Mass density of the bridge deck (m) [kg/m] 39883
Unit inertia (Im) [kg.m2/m] 2859750.65
μ Mass ratio 200.21
μf Correction factor 1.29
K Safety factor 1.2
η Reduction factor 0.5
Bending natural frequency (fb) Completed bridge [Hz] 0.295
Torsion mode frequency (ft) Completed bridge [Hz] 0.663
Frequency ratio (ε) Completed bridge 2.247
CS Bending natural frequency (fb) Construction stage [Hz] 0.334
CS Torsion mode frequency (ft) Construction stage [Hz] 0.637
CS Frequency ratio (ε) Construction stage 1.907
 Aerodynamic Susceptibility
For Balang Island Bridge:

1.25𝑥23.4 16𝑥36.31
𝑃 0.44
39883 23.4𝑥402𝑥0.295

According to BSI 2001 BD 49/01, as having value of 0.04 ≤ Pb ≤ 1.0, it can be

considered that Balang Island Bridge satisfied the aerodynamic stability criteria
within the scope of the rules, and shall be considered adequate with regard to
each potential type of excitation (with certain specific conditions required in BSI
2001 BD 49/01).
However, within the above range value of Pb (> 0.04), the Wind Tunnel Test
(Section Model) was recommended in order to be able to confirm the aero-
dynamic stability in a more accurate level.
 Wind Tunnel Test for 
Wind‐Induced Vibration
 Wind Tunnel Test
The section model wind tunnel
test for Balang Bridge was
carried out in the TJ-1 Boundary
Layer Wind Tunnel of the State
Key Laboratory for Disaster
Reduction in Civil Engineering,
Tongji University, Shanghai,
China.
TJ-1 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel is an open-circuit low-speed tunnel
with a test-section of being 1.8 m wide, 1.8 m high and 14 m long. The
fan power is 90kW, and the wind speed ranges from 0.5 to 30 m/sec.
 Ultimate Design Wind Speed for Flutter Check
Design wind speed at the deck level Vd = Vs10 (z/10)α
For flutter risk identification, the ultimate design wind speed for flutter check can
be defined as:
Vuf = K μf Vd
K is a comprehensive safety factor considering the uncertainties in wind tunnel
test, design and construction of the bridge, which was set to 1.2.
μf is a coefficient considering the influence of turbulence on wind speed and the
incomplete correlation of winds along the bridge span (depending also on the
span length and the site terrain condition), which was set to 1.24.
Then: Vuf = K μf Vd = 1.2 x 1.24 x Vd = 1.488 Vd (m/sec)
For flutter stability requirement, the above ultimate design wind speed should
not exceed the critical flutter wind speed obtained by the wind tunnel test.
Three different states of the bridge were tested in the wind tunnel for flutter check:

Completed Bridge at Service State

Longest Double
Cantilever State

Longest Single Cantilever State

 Basic Similarity in the Concept of Section Model Test
The geometric scale (λL) was determined to be 1/40 according to the
dimensions of the prototype deck cross-section.
Besides of the geometric similarity, the following three groups of
dimensionless parameters should be kept in consistence between the
prototype and the model in the wind tunnel of rigid spring-suspended
section model test:

Frequency parameters: , or (frequency ratio)

Inertia parameters: , or (ratio of gyration radius)

Damping parameters: v , t (damping ratio）

where:
V = Mean wind speed (m/sec)
𝑓 = Natural frequency of vertical vibration (1/sec)
𝑓 = Natural frequency of torsional vibration (1/sec)
B = Deck width (meter)
b = Deck half-width (meter)
𝑚 = Equivalent mass of the bridge deck per unit length (kg/m)
𝐽 = Equivalent mass moment of inertia per unit length (kg/m)
𝑟 = Equivalent gyration radius (meter)
v = Damping ratio of vertical vibration
t = Damping ratio of torsional vibration
The model damping ratios are set to be 2% because of using prestressed concrete
structure in Balang Bridge, as suggested by the “China Code of Wind Resistant
Design Specification for Highway Bridges”.
Aerodynamic Excitation Test
Section Model Test for Measurement of the Aerodynamic
Coefficients of the Deck Cross Section for Service State
Results of Aerodynamic Coefficients with Various
Wind Attack Angles in Service State
2

1.5
Aerodynamic coefficient

1 Ch
Cv
Cm(*10)
Cd
0.5 Cl

-0.5
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Wind Direction(deg)
where:
Ch = aerodynamic coefficient of lateral force
Cv = aerodynamic coefficient of vertical force
Cm = aerodynamic coefficient of torsion
Cd = aerodynamic coefficient of drag
Cl = aerodynamic coefficient of lift-up
FL FV
FD

α
FH
M

Wind
 Static Equivalent of the Aerodynamic Wind Forces

Fh = Ch q H [kN/m]
Fv = Cv q H [kN/m]
M = Cm q B H [kN.m/m]
q = wind pressure (kN/m2)
H = height of the deck incl railing fence (at service state) (meter)
B = deck width (meter)
Ch , Cv , Cm = aerodynamic coefficients depending on the deck shape
and the wind attack angle, usually obtained by Wind Tunnel
Test
Aerodynamic Stability Test
Section Model for the Service State in the Wind Tunnel
Section Model for the Service State in the Wind Tunnel
Testing Control Room
 Flutter Critical Wind Speed by Section Model Test

Flutter wind
Longest single-
speed (m/s) Service state
cantilever state
Attack angle
+3 >104.3 95.9
0 >104.6 >105.1
-3 93.8 >105.5
Ultimate Design Wind
[1.488 Vd] [1.488 Vd-cs]
Speed for Flutter Check
The result of flutter test demonstrates that the critical flutter wind speed Vcrf in service
state is 93.8 m/sec with the structural damping ratio of 2%, and wind attack angle (to
the bridge deck) of -3.
Vuf = 1.488 Vd = 54.03 m/sec Vuf < Vcrf (OK)

As the ultimate wind speed at the bridge deck level (54.03 m/sec) is much lower than
the critical flutter wind speed (93.8 m/sec), that means the bridge is safe and
adequate for the aerodynamic excitation, particularly for the flutter risk.
In the construction stage, the test result shows a critical flutter wind speed of 95.9
m/sec in the longest cantilever state with wind attack angles of +3.
The above result of wind tunnel test is consistent with the theoretical aerodynamic
stability analysis result as mentioned previously.
Therefore, Balang Island Bridge is proven to be adequate against the aerodynamic
excitation, in both service state and construction stages.
Seismic Resistance 
Analysis
The long-span cable stayed bridges usually experience very long fundamental
periods because of their long-span girder and flexibility, which is an aspect that
differentiates them from other structures.
The flexibility and dynamic characteristics of the cable stayed bridges depend
on various parameters such as the main span length, deck width, stay cable
system and their arrangement, girder-pylons and girder-piers support
conditions, and many other aspects.
This structural typology is complex, consisting on several structural components
with different individual stiffness and damping properties, such as pylon’s
properties and deck’s properties. Therefore, it needs a more comprehensive
dynamic analysis for the seismic design, and to accurately evaluate their
periods, modal shapes and damping characteristics.
Modal analysis results of Balang Bridge
structure shows that the first vibration
mode presents a long natural period, in
the order of several seconds, and they
are fundamentally deck modes, i.e
vertical bending mode (T1 = 3.394 sec),
longitudinal drift mode (T2 = 3.122 sec),
and lateral (transverse) bending mode
(T3 = 2.552 sec). The second mode
shows a longitudinal horizontal mode
with a high mass participation (61%)
coupled with rotation-y (39%)
representing the high risk of horizontal
motion at the deck level as well as the
pylon due to earthquake excitation. T = 3.394 sec
Mode Shape 2
Mode Shape 3
Furthermore, the tower modes are shown in higher-order vibration
modes (> 18th mode), which represent much higher frequency of
vibration but in much lower mass participation.
Mode Shape 18
Mode Shape 23
For comparative seismic analysis, we have also provided a full integrated
bridge model including the pylon’s foundation (bored piles). In this case, the
dynamic mode shapes were slightly altered by showing the free-standing bored
pile mode in the first modes, then followed by the deck modes.
In general condition, the seismic behaviour of a long-span cable stayed bridge
such as Balang Bridge is good and satisfactory. The structural response due to
an earthquake excitation is usually not a critical point in the failure risk of the
bridge, compared with the aerodynamic stability risk.
According to various observations by the bridge engineers after heavy
earthquakes, the main damage were often found in the deck-pylons or deck-
piers supports, due to differential motion at those supports, when the
earthquake acts in the longitudinal or transverse direction.
In that regard, the girder supports in Balang Bridge were designed as guided
longitudinal free movable bearings, in order to allow a semi-free swinging due
to an earthquake excitation and to act a low level of direct girder-pylons seismic
interaction in longitudinal direction.
Viscous dampers are installed in
the deck (edge beams) and to be
connected to the side span’s piers
Those viscous dampers will have a role of vibration control device (passive
control), with an objective to provide damping effect on the bridge deck’s
vibration. It is mainly to control the earthquake-excited vibration, but
secondly also for the traffic-induced vibration.

Viscous
Damper Link
As another alternative, we may also use Lead
Rubber Bearings (LRB) as a passive control
device for additional damper to be installed in the
side piers or abutments. However, considering
the large capacity needed (3000 kN), and also
the uncertainty about service lifetime of LRB for Capacity Load : 3000 kN
Movement : ± 200 mm
such large capacity, we finally decided to use the
viscous damper.

α ≈ 0.1 - 0.2
 Basic Principle of Seismic Resistance Analysis

Seismic resistance analysis of Balang Island Bridge was carried out in

accordance with Indonesian Seismic Code for Bridges SNI 2833:2008
using Response Spectrum Analysis.
Since the cable stayed bridge is categorized as a special bridge, the
Balang Island bridge must be designed for such a condition to have a
low probability of collapse but can suffer disruption and damages due
to earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedence in 100 years.
However, it was later verified also by using the new seismic code SNI
2833:2016 with a similar risk of 7% probability of exceedence in 75
years as required in the new code, which means approximately 1000-
year return period.
 Minimum analysis requirement for seismic effect
Bridge with number of span > 1
Seismic Single span Other bridge Essential bridge Critical bridge
zone bridge
Regular Irregular Regular Irregular Regular Irregular

1 * * * * * *
Seismic
2 SM/UL SM SM/UL MM MM MM
analysis
3 is not SM/UL MM MM MM MM TH
required
4 SM/UL MM MM MM TH TH
Remark:
* : Dynamic analysis is not required
UL : Elastic method (Uniform Load)
SM : Single mode spectral method (Single Mode Elastic)
MM : Multi-mode spectral method (Multi-Mode Elastic)
TH : Time history method (Time History Analysis)
The seismic zone can be defined according to the horizontal response
spectral acceleration coefficient of 1.0 sec modified by site factor (SD1) as
shown in the below table. These seismic zones reflect the variation in
seismic risk across the country that can be used to permit different
requirements for methods of analysis, minimum support lengths, pier
design details, as well as for foundation & abutment design procedures.
Acceleration coefficient (SD1) Seismic zone
SD1 ≤ 0.15 1
0.15 < SD1 ≤ 0.3 2
0.3 < SD1 ≤ 0.5 3
SD1 > 0.5 4
From previous calculation, Balang Island Bridge has SD1 = 0.07g.
It can be defined as located at Seismic Zone 1.
Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient for Indonesia (PGA) with 7%
Probability of Exceedence in 75 Years (Approx. 1000-year Return Period)
Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Indonesia at Period of 0.2 sec (Ss) with 7%
Probability of Exceedence in 75 Years (Approx. 1000-year Return Period) and 5% Critical Damping
Horizontal Response Spectral Acceleration Coefficient for Indonesia at Period of 1.0 sec (S1) with 7%
Probability of Exceedence in 75 Years (Approx. 1000-year Return Period) and 5% Critical Damping
 Design Response Spectrum Data
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) = 0.052g
Acceleration Spectral at Short Period (SS) = 0.106g
Acceleration Spectral at Long Period (S1) = 0.04g
Site Class = SC (hard soil)
Amplification Factor for PGA (FPGA) = 1.2
Amplification Factor for Short Period (Fa) = 1.2
Amplification Factor for Long Period (Fv) = 1.7
AS=FPGA∙PGA = 0.06g
SDS = Fa∙SS = 0.13g
SD1 = Fv∙S1 = 0.07g
Ts = SD1/SDS = 0.54 detik
T0 = 0.2∙TS = 0.11 detik
Response modification factor (R) for superstructure = 1.5
Response modification factor (R) for substructure &
foundation & its connections to superstructure = 1.0
 Design Response Spectrum

0.175
Elastic Seismic Coefficient, Csm (g)

0.150

0.125

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

T = 3.39 second Period, T (second)

 Minimum Design Seismic Coefficient for
Horizontal Connection Force in Zone 1
Site Class: SC - Hard Soil
0.175
Elastic Seismic Coefficient, Csm (g)

0.150

0.125

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

T = 3.39 second Period, T (second)

Axial Force Diagram in the Bridge Deck due to
Earthquake in Longitudinal Direction [N]
Bending Moment Diagram in the Bridge Deck due to
Earthquake in Lateral Direction [N.mm]
Axial Force Diagram in the Pylon due to
Earthquake in Lateral Direction [N]
Shear Force Diagram in the Pylon due to
Earthquake in Lateral Direction [N]
Bending Moment Diagram in the Pylon due to
Earthquake in Lateral Direction [N.mm]
 Load Combination
Serviceability Strength
Load
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Permanent :
Self weight
Super imposed dead load
Creep shrinkage
Prestress
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Construction load
Earth pressure
Settlement
Transient :
Lane load “D“ or truck load “T”
X O O O O X O O O O
Braking force or centrifugal force X O O O O X O O O
Pedestrian live load X X
Friction O O X O O O O O O O O
Temperature O O X O O O O O O O O
Water load and stream pressure O O X O O O X O O
Wind load O O X O O O X O
Earthquake X
Collision force
Vibration load X X
Construction load X X
“ X ” means active load (1) = permanent “x” SLS + “x” SLS active load + 1 “o” Permanent “x” ULS + “x” ULS active load + 1 “o” ULS
“ O ” means load that can be combined with active load, single or SLS load load
as shown. (2) = permanent “x” SLS + “x” SLS active load + 1 “o”
SLS load + 0,7 “o” SLS load
(3) = permanent “x” KBL + “x” SLS active load + 1 “o”
SLS load + 0,5 “o” SLS load + 0,5 “o” SLS load
Stress in the Deck due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Seismic Loads (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Seismic Loads (MPa)
Stress in the Pylon’s Cross Beam due to Combined
Service Loads & Seismic Loads (MPa)
Summary of Stress Verification due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Seismic Loads (MPa)

Allowable
Load Bridge Stress
Condition Stress Remark
Combination Component (MPa)
(MPa)
Maximum 3.07 3.35 = OK
Bridge Deck
Minimum -20 -27 = OK
Maximum 3.24 3.35 = OK
Combined Pylon
Minimum -15 -27 = OK
Service +
Seismic Loads Pylon Cross Maximum 0 3.35 = OK
Beam Minimum -6.7 -27 = OK
Maximum 1.53 2.96 = OK
Tie Beam
Minimum -1.6 -21 = OK
 Movement at the End and Supports of the Bridge
Expansion Joint at the Abutment Pylon
Loading Pier Support
End of the Bridge Support Support
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
Envelope at service
177.4 183.8 142 97.2
(max)
Envelope at service
30.8 31.9 12.2 -30.6
(min)
Enve. at service +
195.1 200.7 167.6 134
earthquake (max)
Enve. at service +
103.5 107.1 81.3 34.4
earthquake (min)
Foundation Analysis
For foundation analysis, two models have been analyzed, i.e. the first model
consisting of a 2-level modeling as shown below (super-structure to be
analyzed separately without the bored piles), and the second model consisting
of a full integrated model as shown in the next slide.
Here below is a full integrated bridge model including the pylon’s foundation
(bored piles) for comparative analysis. The results show that the first model
gives bigger action forces to the foundation.
Lateral Load (kN) v/s Pile-Head Deflection (m) for Ø2.0m

Source: Irawan Firmansyah

Stresses in the Pylon’s Foundation due to Combined Forces
of Service Loads & Earthquake Loads (MPa)
Section Strength Analysis 
at Ultimate Limit State
 Strength Analysis at Ultimate Limit State

The cross-section’s strength analysis at ultimate limit state was done to

complete the bridge structural safety requirement (LRFD), which was
performed according to the results of internal forces that were analyzed
previously.
The strength analysis was performed by doing a design strength check
against the combined internal forces in ultimate limit state on the bridge
deck according to the load factors and the strength reduction factors
required by the code, as well as the ultimate P-M interaction analysis for
the pylons, on which the ultimate internal forces were shown to be not
exceeding the design capacity of the corresponding members’ cross
sections.
Envelope Diagram of Deck’s Design Flexural Strength
against the Ultimate Bending Moment (N.mm)
Envelope Diagram of Deck’s Design Shear Strength
against the Ultimate Shear Force (N)
Pylon Ultimate Limit State Interaction Diagram
Member Number = 403
Axial Forces and Moments Capacity Check
Concentric Max. Axial Load φPn-max = 2.5x108 N
Axial Load Ratio Pu/φPn = 1.5x108/2.5x108
= 0.59 < 1 (OK)
Moment Ratio Mcy/φMny = 1.1x1010/1.8x1010
= 0.586 < 1 (OK)
Mcz/φMnz = 1.0x1011/1.7x1011 = 0.59 < 1 (OK)
Mc/φMn = 1.0x1011/1.7x1011 = 0.59 < 1 (OK)
Pylon Ultimate Limit State Interaction Diagram
Member Number = 396
Axial Forces and Moments Capacity Check
Concentric Max. Axial Load φPn-max = 3.3x108 N
Axial Load Ratio Pu/φPn = 1.9x108/3.3x108
= 0.593 < 1 (OK)
Moment Ratio Mcy/φMny = 1.2x1010/1.9x1010
= 0.618 < 1 (OK)
Mcz/φMnz = 1.2x1011/2.0x1011 = 0.593 < 1 (OK)
Mc/φMn = 1.2x1011/2.0x1011 = 0.593 < 1 (OK)
Pylon Ultimate Limit State Interaction Diagram
Member Number = 715
Axial Forces and Moments Capacity Check
Concentric Max. Axial Load φPn-max = 5.9x108 N
Axial Load Ratio Pu/φPn = 2.5x108/4.5x108
= 0.557 < 1 (OK)
Moment Ratio Mcy/φMny = 1.0x1010/1.8x1010
= 0.58 < 1 (OK)
Mcz/φMnz = 2.7x1011/4.9x1011 = 0.55 < 1 (OK)
Mc/φMn = 2.9x1011/5.2x1011 = 0.554 < 1 (OK)
Pylon Ultimate Limit State Interaction Diagram
Member Number = 727
Axial Forces and Moments Capacity Check
Concentric Max. Axial Load φPn-max = 4.1x108 N
Axial Load Ratio Pu/φPn = 1.6x108/3.3x108
= 0.491 < 1 (OK)
Moment Ratio Mcy/φMny = 4.0x1010/8.4x1010
= 0.48 < 1 (OK)
Mcz/φMnz = 1.2x1011/2.4x1011 = 0.489 < 1 (OK)
Mc/φMn = 1.3x1011/2.6x1011 = 0.488 < 1 (OK)
Concluding Remarks
1. The stress check results at Serviceability Limit State show that all bridge
components are within the safe range of the allowable stress limit under all
loading combinations, i.e. service loads and transient loads, as required by
the code.
2. The strength check results at Ultimate Limit State (LRFD) show that all
sections and components are safe and adequate for the ultimate loading
combinations.
3. The frequencies ratio of torsion mode to vertical bending mode in dynamic
analysis is larger than 2.0, while the aerodynamic susceptibility parameter
Pb is far below 1.0, which can be considered satisfactory for the
aerodynamic stability. However, a wind tunnel test is recommended to be
performed, at least for a section model test, in order to confirm the aero-
dynamic stability of the bridge.
4. The results of wind tunnel test show that the critical flutter wind speed in both
service state and construction stages are much higher than the ultimate design
wind speed for flutter check, which means the bridge is safe and adequate for
the aerodynamic excitation.
5. The construction stage analysis shows that all stages are within the safe
range of the allowable stress limit under construction loading combinations.
However, the builder is recommended to perform the construction stage
analysis in accordance with their own construction method and sequences,
which may differ from the designer’s assumption on the construction
method, and to develop their own camber analysis as well as the
deformation control and stress safety assurance during construction.
6. The deformation check results at Serviceability Limit State show that the
bridge deck and pylons are within the safe range of the deflection limit
under service loads as required by the code.
7. The SHMS is highly recommended to be installed from beginning of the
construction stages, in order to be able to accurately measure and monitor
the loading and stress variability, and to assure the bridge safety during
construction as well as in the service state.
Thank you