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

net/publication/326826913

Stability and Adequate Bracing Design of Pretensioned Cable-Braced Inverted-

Y-Shaped Ferris Wheel Support System Using Matrix Structural Second-Order
Analysis Approach

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · October 2018

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002185

CITATIONS READS

5 365

4 authors, including:

W. H. Pan Matthew R. Eatherton

Zhejiang University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
22 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   1,074 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xin Nie
Tsinghua University
87 PUBLICATIONS   314 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Computational Study of Tension Field Action in Gable Frame Panel Zones View project

Structural Fuse View project

All content following this page was uploaded by W. H. Pan on 27 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Stability and Adequate Bracing Design of Pretensioned
Cable-Braced Inverted-Y-Shaped Ferris Wheel
Support System Using Matrix Structural
Second-Order Analysis Approach
Wen-Hao Pan 1; Matthew R. Eatherton, M.ASCE 2; Xin Nie 3; and Jian-Sheng Fan 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Elastic buckling and second-order analyses are conducted using the matrix structural analysis approach for the in-plane and out-
of-plane stability and adequate bracing design of a new type of Ferris wheel support system that can be used to allow a large span: the
pretensioned cable-braced inverted-Y-shaped support system (PCB-IYSS). First, the global structural stability stiffness matrix is formulated
by combining the element stability stiffness matrices and considering the lateral bracing stiffnesses of the cable system. In the elastic buckling
analysis, the eigenproblem is solved by setting the determinant of the global structural stability stiffness matrix to zero. The influence of
the lateral bracing stiffness on the buckling load and economical efficiency of the columns are discussed. In the second-order analysis, the
element end displacements and reaction forces are determined considering the lateral loads at the top of the column. Finally, using the results
from these analyses, the adequate bracing approach is followed for the design of PCB-IYSS. The strength limits of the cable system
(as column-top lateral bracing) and supporting columns (as column-base in-plane rotational spring-supported bracing) are formulated,
and their adequate stiffness requirements are determined based on examination of the strength limits. A detailed design procedure
and an elementary design example are presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002185. © 2018 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Pretensioned cable-braced inverted-Y-shaped support system (PCB-IYSS); Ferris wheel; Design; Stability stiffness
matrix; Matrix structural second-order analysis; Adequate bracing; Bracing strength and stiffness requirements; Elastic buckling analysis;
Second-order analysis.

Introduction
Ferris wheel structures are one of the most common type of amuse-
ment rides, especially in commercial places with beautiful scenery.
A Ferris wheel structure consists of a rotating wheel with multiple
passenger-carrying cabins together with a support system. The sup-
port system is subject to large vertical load as well as lateral load
from the Ferris wheel. The lateral-load effect would be largely am-
plified by the P-delta effect from the vertical load and thus is critical
to the structural behavior. Therefore, an economical support system
design requires an efficient lateral-load transfer mechanism to en-
hance the global stability. As a result, the Ferris wheel support
1 port system has been developed to allow a large span: the preten-
Ph.D. Candidate, Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and
Durability of China Education Ministry, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Tsinghua Univ., Beijing 100084, China. Email: panwenhao13@tsinghua
.org.cn
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Email: meather@vt.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Beijing Engineering
Research Center of Steel and Concrete Composite Structures, Tsinghua
Univ., Beijing 100084, China (corresponding author). Email: nienie12@
gmail.com
4
Professor, Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability
of China Education Ministry, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua Univ.,
Beijing 100084, China. Email: fanjsh@tsinghua.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 26, 2017; approved on
May 1, 2018; published online on August 2, 2018. Discussion period
open until January 2, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
systems can be divided into two main types. The first type is an
A-shaped column system that uses a truss mechanism for the trans-
ferring of lateral loads. As the most common type of Ferris wheel
support system, the A-shaped column system has been applied in
many famous Ferris wheels, including the original 1893 Chicago
Ferris wheel [Fig. 1(a)], High Roller in Las Vegas, the London Eye,
and the Melbourne Star. The second type is a pretensioned cable-
braced support system that uses a pretensioned cable system for
its lateral-load transfer mechanism, which is similar to guyed
towers (e.g., Pan et al. 2017a; Chajes and Chen 1979; Irvine and
O’Sullivan 1979; Gantes et al. 1993). A famous application exam-
ple of this type of support system is the Singapore Flyer [Fig. 1(b)].
In recent years, a new type of pretensioned cable-braced sup-
sioned cable-braced inverted-Y-shaped support system (PCB-IYSS)
[e.g., Tianjin Eye over the Hai River in China, shown in Fig. 1(c)],
which uses pretensioned cables as lateral bracing to enhance the
global stability and lateral-load transfer mechanism of an inverted-
Y-shaped column system. From the architectural perspective, the
PCB-IYSS Ferris wheel can be more aesthetically appealing be-
cause the views are not obstructed by the lower supporting columns.
For the design of a large Ferris wheel support system, it is ex-
pected that engineers will always create finite-element models for
the structural examination. This study seeks to provide a design
procedure of PCB-IYSS that could be helpful in defining a starting
point for design by getting the preliminary sizing of the structural
members. For the design of the conventional pretensioned cable-
braced Ferris wheel support system, the design procedure for
single-level guyed towers (Pan et al. 2017a) can be directly applied
because of similar structural systems. In contrast, the design of

© ASCE 04018194-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Ferris wheel support systems: (a) A-shaped column system (original 1893 Ferris wheel, image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/
Mr. Gustafson); (b) conventional pretensioned cable-braced support system (Singapore Flyer, image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Ferylbob);
and (c) PCB-IYSS (Tianjin Eye, image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/FlickreviewR).

PCB-IYSS should be investigated because the stability analyses for
the inverted-Y-shaped column system are more complicated than
that for a simple column. For the design of PCB-IYSS, two par-
ticular issues should be addressed.
The first issue is stability analysis of the inverted-Y-shaped
column system. The stability analyses for the inverted-Y-shaped
column system are complicated because (1) it may be subject to
both in-plane and out-of-plane lateral deformations, and (2) the
geometric nonlinearity can be significant for both vertical column
and supporting columns. In the conventional approach for elastic
buckling and second-order analyses, differential equations of equi-
librium are formulated for each member of the column system, and
hence the solution for these differential equation combinations
may be difficult to obtain. This study applies the matrix structural
analysis approach (McGuire et al. 2014; Przemieniecki 1968; Yuan
2008) using the exact element stability stiffness matrix consider-
ing geometric nonlinearity (Pan et al. 2017a, 2018a; Ekhande
et al. 1989; Yuan 2008), which significantly simplifies the problem.
Therefore, closed-form solutions for the displacements and in-
ternal forces can be derived, and detailed analyses for the inverted-
Y-shaped column system and pretensioned cables can then be
conducted.
The second issue concerns using pretensioned cables as lateral
bracing. The pretensioned cables are used as bracings for stability
and lateral loads at the top of PCB-IYSS. In global structural analy-
analysis, the bracing stiffness requirement cannot be satisfied.
To provide adequate bracing for an imperfect laterally braced col-
umn, the bracing strength and stiffness requirements should both be
satisfied, as specified in the shaded area of Fig. 2. For a given brac-
ing strength limit, the adequate bracing stiffness requirement can be
designed based on examination of the bracing strength limit using
the inverse relationship between the bracing force and bracing stiff-
ness. To establish such an inverse relationship, a second-order
analysis should be conducted to determine the amplification of
the lateral-load effect owing to the P-delta effect from the vertical
load. The adequate bracing concept has been successfully applied
in the design by Pan et al. (2017a, 2018a) for single-level guyed
towers and pretensioned cable-stayed buckling-restrained braces
(Guo et al. 2016, 2017; Tong and Guo 2017, 2018), and a similar
approach can be followed to conduct a rigorous design for
PCB-IYSS.
In view of the aforementioned issues, the present study under-
takes the investigation of the stability and adequate bracing design
of PCB-IYSS. Using the matrix structural analysis approach, the
10
δ
P
Ph Khδ
8 Kh
bracing force, Khδ /Ph

sis and design, the cables can be simplified as horizontal spring-

supported bracings. The “adequate bracing” concept (Winter 1958)
6
can then be applied for its design, which is considered by many to
L
be the concept that provided the basis for modern design provisions
of structural bracings. This concept is illustrated in Fig. 2 for the 4 brac ing
laterally braced rigid column with a lateral load (Pan et al. 2017a, strength Kh,id = P/L
2018a; Ziemian 2010; Wang and Helwig 2005). Fig. 2 shows that limit
the lateral-load effect (specifically, the bracing force, which can be 2
viewed as a bracing strength requirement) is amplified when the brac ing stiffness
column is subject to an axial compression load. The amplified brac- 1
requirement
ing force and bracing stiffness has an inverse relationship. In struc- 0
tural designs, if the bracing is designed based on a strength that 0 1 2 3 4 5
is directly determined using the lateral load Ph , the bracing force bracing stiffness, Kh/Kh,id
requirement cannot be satisfied.
Fig. 2. Inverse interrelationship between bracing strength and stiffness
On the other hand, if the bracing is designed based on an ideal
requirements for laterally braced rigid column.
stiffness K h;id ¼ P=L that is provided using an elastic buckling

© ASCE 04018194-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 Connecting Mx,fw
beam Otop Px,fw Mz,fw
Pz,fw
x
z Py,fw x

y My,fw z
y
Mx,fw
Px,fw Vertical
column
Py,fw
My,fw Mz,fw
Otop Cable
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Supporting
column

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Analysis of PCB-IYSS supported Ferris wheel: (a) loads from the Ferris wheel; and (b) loads acting on the PCB-IYSS.

global structural stability stiffness matrix is formulated by coordi- in Figs. 4 and 5. The distributed loads include vertical load Pd ,
nate transformation and stiffness matrix combination. Then, elastic in-plane and out-of-plane lateral loads Phi and Pho , and bending
buckling and second-order analyses are conducted for both in-plane moments M i , and are determined as Eq. (1) based on the force
and out-of-plane stability of PCB-IYSS. Using the results from the and moment equilibriums
analyses and based on the adequate bracing concept, the strength
limits are examined for the cable system (as column-top lateral Px;fw M y;fw Py;fw M x;fw
Pd ¼ þ ; Phi ¼ þ ;
bracing) and supporting columns (as column-base in-plane rota- 2 Lcb 2 Lcb
tional spring-supported bracing), and the adequate stiffness re- Pz;fw M z;fw
quirements are established. A design procedure is presented and Pho ¼ ; Mi ¼ ð1Þ
2 2
demonstrated.
Fig. 4(a) illustrates the geometric and structural properties of the
single PCB-IYSS discussed in this study. The cables have a length
Analysis of PCB-IYSS-Supported Ferris Wheel and of Lc , inclination angle of φc , vertical height of Hc , cross-sectional
Simplified Spring Model for Lateral Bracing Effect of axial rigidity of Ec Ac , pretensioning strain of ε0 , and in-plane and
Cable System out-of-plane projection lengths of Lci and Lco , respectively. The
supporting columns have a length of L, inclination angle of φ,
The PCB-IYSS-supported Ferris wheel can be separately analyzed cross-sectional axial rigidity of EAs , cross-sectional torsional ri-
and designed as two parts, the Ferris wheel and the PCB-IYSS, as gidity of GJ s , and in-plane and out-of-plane cross-sectional mo-
shown in Fig. 3. The loads from the Ferris wheel are acting on the ment of inertias of I si and I so , respectively. The vertical column
PCB-IYSS at their connection point Otop . They can be considered has a length of H, cross-sectional axial rigidity of EA, cross-
in the six degrees of freedom at Otop , including vertical load Px;fw sectional torsional rigidity of GJ, and in-plane and out-of-plane
from dead and live weight from the Ferris wheel, lateral loads Py;fw cross-sectional moment of inertias of I i and I o , respectively.
and Pz;fw from wind or seismic loads, bending moment Mz;fw from The total axial load on the vertical column can then be formu-
rotating of the wheel, and bending moments M x;fw and M y;fw from lated as Eq. (2), with four cables used for two inverted-Y-shaped
twisting of the wheel. These loads will be estimated and provided column systems. As shown in Eq. (2), the total axial load can be
by the engineers based on the design condition in an actual design approximated to the externally applied vertical load Pd considering
practice. These loads are supported by two inverted-Y-shaped col- the smaller axial rigidity of the cables compared with the columns
umn systems. Thus, Px;fw , Py;fw , Pz;fw , and Mz;fw are considered to
be averagely distributed to the two inverted-Y-shaped column P ¼ Pd þ 2Ec Ac ε0 cos φc ≈ Pd ð2Þ
systems, and M x;fw and M y;fw can be equivalent as couples of
forces M x;fw =Lcb and M y;fw =Lcb acting at the top of the two col- For a simplified PCB-IYSS analysis, the lateral bracing effect of
umn systems, where Lcb denotes the length of the connecting the cable system can be modeled by in-plane and out-of-plane hori-
beam. Therefore, analysis of the PCB-IYSS with two inverted- zontal springs (Fig. 4) with stiffnesses of K hi and K ho , respectively,
Y-shaped column systems can be simplified to one inverted- which can be formulated as per Eq. (3) (derivation referred to by
Y-shaped column system, which is braced by a cable system with Pan et al. 2017a). For simplicity, dimensionless spring stiffness fac-
half of their original cross-sectional area, Ac =2. tors Rhi and Rho are defined in Eq. (4)
Then, the six-degree-of-freedom loads from the Ferris wheel
2Ec Ac L2ci 2Ec Ac L2co
for the overall support system can be considered to distribute to K hi ¼ ; K ho ¼ ð3Þ
the top of the single inverted-Y-shaped column system, as shown L3c L3c

© ASCE 04018194-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Analysis of PCB-IYSS: (a) loads and in-plane and out-of-plane simplified springs for PCB-IYSS; and (b) element end displacements and
reaction forces in local coordinate system for matrix structural analysis.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Second-order analyses of PCB-IYSS: (a) in-plane analysis (front view of PCB-IYSS); and (b) out-of-plane analysis (side view of PCB-IYSS).

© ASCE 04018194-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 12
K hi K ho
Rhi ¼ ; Rho ¼ ð4Þ T
EI i =H 3 EI so =L3 10

8
where subscripts i and o = in-plane and out-of-plane deformations,

stability coefficients
respectively. 6 Q

4 S ms,max
In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Elastic Buckling and
Second-Order Analyses 2 C

As the basis for design, elastic buckling and second-order analyses 0

are conducted on the PCB-IYSS using the matrix structural analysis
-2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

approach.
-4
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Element and Structural Stability Stiffness Matrices axial force factor, λ/π

Element Stability Stiffness Matrix Fig. 6. Influence of axial force factor on element stability coefficients.
For the elastic second-order analysis of axial-loaded Euler–
Bernoulli beam–column elements with a planar translational de-
formation, the exact stability stiffness matrix [K e ðλ; EI; LÞ]
[Eq. (5)] can be used to consider the geometric nonlinearity TðλÞ ¼ λ3 sin λ=ϕðλÞ
(Pan et al. 2017a, 2018a; Ekhande et al. 1989; Yuan 2008;
Munoz 1991; Aristizabal-Ochoa 1997; Yang and McGuire QðλÞ ¼ λ2 ð1 − cos λÞ=ϕðλÞ
1986). This stability stiffness matrix shows the relationship be- SðλÞ ¼ λðsin λ − λ cos λÞ=ϕðλÞ
tween the element end translational displacements/rotation an-
gles and the corresponding reaction forces (Pan et al. 2017a, b, CðλÞ ¼ λðλ − sin λÞ=ϕðλÞ
2018a, b; Nie et al. 2017) ϕðλÞ ¼ 2 − 2 cos λ − λ sin λ ð7Þ
0 1 0 1
F1 u1 The PCB-IYSS is considered to consist of three beam–column
B C B C elements [Fig. 4(b)], i.e., Element I for the vertical column and el-
B M1 C B θ1 C
B C B C ements IIa/IIb for the supporting columns. Here, [K e ] is functions
B C ¼ ½K e ðλ; EI; LÞB C
B F2 C B u2 C of λ, EI, and L, the exact stability stiffness matrix for the vertical
@ A @ A
column and the supporting columns can be written [K e ðλsi=o ;
M2 θ2
EI si=o ; LÞ] and [K e ðλi=o ; EI i=o ; HÞ], respectively. The subscript
2 3
EI EI EI EI i is associated with the in-plane deformations ðuy1 ; θz1 ; uy2 ; θz2 Þ
6 −TðλÞ [or ðuȳ1 ; θz̄1 ; uȳ2 ; θz̄2 Þ], and the subscript o is associated with the
L2 7
TðλÞ QðλÞ QðλÞ
6 L3 L2 L3 70 u 1 out-of-plane deformations ðuz1 ; θy1 ; uz2 ; θy2 Þ [or ðuz̄1 ; θȳ1 ; uz̄2 ; θȳ2 Þ],
6 EI 7 1
6 EI EI 7B C where ðx; y; zÞ and ðx̄; ȳ; z̄Þ denote the local coordinate systems for
6 SðλÞ −QðλÞ 2 CðλÞ 7B θ 1 C
6 L L L 7B C
¼6 7 the vertical Column Element I and supporting Column Element IIa,
6 EI EI 7B u C
6 TðλÞ 3 −QðλÞ 2 7@ 2 A respectively, and ðx; y; zÞ is also used as the global coordinate
6 L L 7
6 7 θ2 system.
4 EI 5 The axial force factors for the vertical column and supporting
sym: SðλÞ
L columns associated with in-plane and out-of-plane deformations
are formulated
ð5Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PH 2 P PH 2 P
where EI = cross-sectional flexural rigidity associated with the λi ¼ ¼π ; λo ¼ ¼π
planar translational deformation; L = element length; sym. = EI i PE;i EI o PE;o
symmetric matrix; and λ = dimensionless axial force factor, sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ps L2 Ps Ps L2 Ps
which is defined λsi ¼ ¼π ; λso ¼ ¼π ð8Þ
EI si PE;si EI so PE;so
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffi
PL2 P
λ¼ ¼π ð6Þ where P and Ps = axial compression forces of vertical column and
EI PE supporting columns, respectively; PE;i (PE;o ) and PE;si (PE;so ) =
Euler buckling axial forces of a pin-supported element with an
where coefficients T, Q, S, and C in the stability stiffness unbraced length for the vertical column and supporting columns,
matrices correspond to the element end reaction translational respectively, defined in Eq. (9)
force (or bending moment) for a unit translational displacement
EI i EI o
(or rotation angle) of an axial-loaded beam–column. These PE;i ¼ π2 ; PE;o ¼ π2
coefficients are transcendental functions of the axial force fac- H2 H2
tor λ. In addition, the influence of λ on these coefficients is EI EI
PE;si ¼ π2 2si ; PE;so ¼ π2 2so ð9Þ
plotted in Fig. 6 L L

© ASCE 04018194-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 The axial and torsional stiffnesses of an element are formulated The stiffness of the supporting column elements is considered
in Eq. (10), where EA and GJ = cross-sectional axial and torsional first at the connection point O. The element stiffness matrix [K s;i ]
rigidities, respectively associated with the unconstrained in-plane displacements, ux̄1 , uȳ1 ,
and θz̄1 , in the local coordinate system is formulated as Eq. (11), by
EA GJ combining Eqs. (5) and (10)
K axi ¼ ; K tor ¼ ð10Þ 2 3
L L
EAs
6 7
6 L 7
6 7
6 EI si EI si 7
Global Structural Stability Stiffness Matrix for In-Plane ½K s;i  ¼ 6 Tðλsi Þ 3 Qðλsi Þ 2 7 ð11Þ
Analysis 6 L L 7
6 7
To conveniently conduct the elastic buckling and second-order 4 EI 5
sym: Sðλsi Þ si
analyses, the global structural stability stiffness matrix [K] of the L
PCB-IYSS considering geometric nonlinearity can be formulated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

by combining the element stability stiffness matrix [K e ðλs ; EI s ; LÞ]
of the supporting Column Elements IIa/IIb, element stability stiff-
ness matrix [K e ðλ; EI; HÞ] of the vertical Column Element I, and
lateral bracing stiffnesses K hi and K ho and considering the boun-
dary conditions.
Using the coordinate transformation [Eq. (12)], the global stiff-
ness matrix [K Os;i ] associated with ux1 , uy1 , and θz1 at the connec-
tion point O in the global coordinate system considering the
stiffness of supporting Column Elements I and II can be formulated
as Eq. (13)

0 1 0 1 2 30 1 2 30 1
ux̄1 ux1 cosðπ þ φÞ sinðπ þ φÞ ux1 − cos φ − sin φ ux1
B C B C 7B C
B uȳ1 C ¼ Dðπ þ φÞB uy1 C ¼ 6 7B C 6
5B C
@ A @ A 4 − sinðπ þ φÞ cosðπ þ φÞ 5@ uy1 A ¼ 4 sin φ − cos φ @ uy1 A ð12Þ
θz̄1 θz1 1 θz1 1 θz1

½K Os;i  ¼ Dðπ þ φÞT ½K s;i Di ðπ þ φÞ þ Dðπ − φÞT ½K s;i Di ðπ − φÞ

2 3
EAs EI
6 cos2 φ þ Tðλsi Þ 3si sin2 φ 7
6 L L 7
6 7
6 EAs 2 EI EI si 7
¼ 26 sin φ þ Tðλsi Þ 3si cos2 φ −Qðλsi Þ 2 cos φ 7 ð13Þ
6 L L L 7
6 7
4 EI si 5
sym: Sðλsi Þ
L

Then, by combining Eq. (13) with the element stability stiffness matrix [K e ðλi ; EI i ; HÞ] of the vertical Column Element I and lateral
bracing stiffness Khi , the global structural stability stiffness matrix [K i ] of the PCB-IYSS associated with the in-plane element end trans-
lational displacements/rotation angles ðuy1 ; θz1 ; uy2 ; θz2 Þ and corresponding global reaction forces are formulated as shown in Eq. (14)
2 3
½K Os;i ð2; 3Þ
6 7
½K i  ¼ ½K e ðλi ; EI i ; HÞ þ 6
4 K hi 7
5
0
2   3
EI i EAs 2 EI si 2 EI i EI EI i EI i
6 Tðλ Þ þ 2 sin φ þ Tðλ Þ cos φ Qðλi Þ − 2Qðλsi Þ 2si cos φ −Tðλi Þ Qðλi Þ
H3 L3 2 H3 H2 7
i si
6 L H L 7
6 7
6 EI i EI EI EI i 7
6 Sðλi Þ þ 2Sðλsi Þ si −Qðλi Þ 2i Cðλi Þ 7
6 H L H H 7
¼6 7
6 EI EI i 7
6 ðTðλi Þ þ Rhi Þ 3i −Qðλi Þ 2 7
6 H 7
6 H 7
4 EI i 5
sym: Sðλi Þ
H
2 3
EI i EI EI EI i
6 ðTðλi Þ þ Rh;s Þ H 3 ðQðλi Þ − Rrh Þ 2i −Tðλi Þ 3i Qðλi Þ 2 7
6 H H H 7
6 EI i 7
6 EI i EI i 7
6 ðSðλi Þ þ Rr Þ −Qðλi Þ 2 Cðλi Þ 7
6 H H H 7
¼6 7 ð14Þ
6 EI EI 7
6 ðTðλi Þ þ Rhi Þ 3i −Qðλi Þ 2i 7
6 H H 7
6 7
4 EI i 5
sym: Sðλi Þ
H

© ASCE 04018194-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 0.6

Rr,n/(L/Hcosϕ) (rotational spring stiffness factor

closely. Furthermore, PE;si ¼ π2 EI si =L2 , where the horizontal axis

of in-plane base support for vertical column)

PE;si =Ps reflects the supporting column rigidity relative to the axial
force. For PE;si =Ps ≈ 0.49 [thereby λsi ¼ π=0.7 and Sðλsi Þ ¼ 0],
Rr,n/(L/(Hcosϕ)) = S(λsi)/λsi2
0.4 Rr;n is equal to 0. This level of supporting column rigidity corre-
PE,si/Ps = π 2/λsi 2 sponds to the buckling state of an axial-loaded fixed-pinned column
with the effective length equal to 0.7L. As PE;si =Ps further
decreases, Rr;n decrease rapidly and approaches −∞ as PE;si =Ps
0.2 approaches 0.25. Thus, it is recommended to use a supporting
column rigidity level of PE;si =Ps ≥ 0.49 to provide a positive
column-base rotational spring stiffness factor
0  1.15  
PE;si Rr;n Rr;n
original relationship ¼ 0.49 þ 2.5 0≤ ≤ 0.5
Ps L=ðH cos φÞ L=ðH cos φÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

approximated relationship
ð17Þ
-0.2
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
In addition, based on the first row/column of [K Os;i ] formulated
PE,si/Ps (supporting column rigidity relative to axial force)
in Eq. (13), the vertical stiffness at the connection point O owing to
Fig. 7. Influence of supporting column rigidity on rotational spring the supporting columns is formulated as the sum of two compo-
stiffness factor of in-plane base support. nents owing to the axial rigidity and the flexural rigidity. Thus,
the axial force, Ps , of the supporting columns can be derived as
Eq. (18), which can be approximated to the right side where
I si =ðAs L2 Þ ¼ ðrsi =LÞ2 ≪ 1 for economical designs (where rsi
where Rh;s , Rrh , and Rr in [K i ] = dimensionless stiffness factors of denotes the cross-sectional radius of gyration)
the in-plane base support for the vertical column owing to the stiff-
2
L cos φ
EAs
ness of the supporting columns, and they are defined in Eq. (15) for P P
Ps ¼ ≈ ð18Þ
simplicity 2 cos φ L cos φ þ Tðλsi Þ EI3si sin2 φ 2 cos φ
EA s 2
L
2 2
2ðEA
L sin φ þ Tðλsi Þ L3 cos φÞ
s EI si
Rh;s ¼ EI i ;
H3
Global Structural Stability Stiffness Matrix for Out-of-Plane
Analysis
2Qðλsi Þ EI
L2
si
cos φ The stiffness of the supporting column elements is considered first
Rrh ¼ EI i
H2
at the connection point O. The element stiffness matrix [K s;o ] as-
sociated with the unconstrained out-of-plane displacements, uz̄1 ,
2Sðλsi Þ EILsi L Sðλsi Þ 2
Rr ¼ ¼ λ ¼ Rr;n λ2i ð15Þ θx̄1 , and θȳ1 , in the local coordinate system is formulated as Eq. (19)
EI i
H
H cos φ λ2si i by combining Eqs. (5) and (10)
2 3
where Rr;n = normalized rotational spring stiffness factor of the EI so EI so
in-plane base support 6 Tðλso Þ 3 Qðλso Þ 2 7
6 L L 7
6 7
L Sðλsi Þ 6 GJ s 7
Rr;n ¼ ð16Þ ½K s;o  ¼ 6 7 ð19Þ
H cos φ λ2si 6 L 7
6 7
4 EI 5
sym: Sðλso Þ so
When the geometry conditions of the PCB-IYSS are given, the L
rotational spring stiffness factor Rr;n is only a function of the axial
force factor λsi [thereby a function of PE;si =Ps (¼ π2 =λ2si )], and the Using the coordinate transformation [Eq. (20)], the global stiff-
relationship is plotted in Fig. 7, which can be approximately ex- ness matrix [K Os;o ] associated with uz1 , θx1 , θy1 at the connection
pressed in an explicit form as Eq. (17). As can be observed, the point O in the global coordinate system considering the stiffness of
approximated relationship matches the original relationship supporting Column Elements I and II can be formulated as Eq. (21)

0 1 0 1 2 30 1 2 30 1
uz̄1 uz1 1 uz1 1 uz1
B C B C 6 7B C 6 7B C
B θx̄1 C ¼ Dðπ þ φÞB θx1 C ¼ 6 sinðπ þ φÞ 7 6 − sin φ 7 B C
@ A @ A 4 cosðπ þ φÞ 5@ θx1 A ¼ 4 − cos φ 5@ θx1 A ð20Þ
θȳ1 θy1 − sinðπ þ φÞ cosðπ þ φÞ θy1 sin φ − cos φ θy1

½K Os;o  ¼ Dðπ þ φÞT ½K s;o Dðπ þ φÞ þ Dðπ − φÞT ½K s;o Dðπ − φÞ

2 3
EI so EI so
6 Tðλ Þ −Qðλ Þ cos φ 7
L3 L2
so so
6 7
6 7
6 GJ s EI 7
¼ 26 cos2 φ þ Sðλso Þ so
sin2 φ 7 ð21Þ
6 L L 7
6 7
4 GJ s 2 EI so 5
sym: sin φ þ Sðλso Þ cos2 φ
L L

© ASCE 04018194-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 Then, combing Eq. (21) with the element stability stiffness matrix [K e ðλo ; EI o ; HÞ] of the vertical Column Element I and lateral bracing
stiffness K ho , the global structural stability stiffness matrix [K i ] of the PCB-IYSS associated with the out-of-plane element end translational
displacements/rotation angles ðuz1 ; θy1 ; uz2 ; θy2 Þ and corresponding global reaction forces are formulated as shown in Eq. (22)
2 3
½K Os;o ð1; 3Þ
6 7
½K o  ¼ ½K e ðλo ; EI o ; HÞ þ 6
4 K ho 7
5
0
2 3
EI o EI so EI o EI so EI o EI o
6 Tðλ Þ þ 2Tðλ Þ Qðλ Þ − 2Qðλ Þ cos φ −Tðλ Þ Qðλ Þ
H3 L3 H2 L2 H3 H2 7
o so o so o o
6   7
6 EI o 7
6 Sðλo Þ
EI o
þ2
GJ s 2
sin φ þ Sðλso Þ
EI so 2
cos φ −Qðλo Þ 2
EI o
Cðλo Þ 7
6 7
6 H L L H H 7
¼6 7 ð22Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 EI o EI o 7
6 Tðλ Þ þ K −Qðλ Þ 7
6 o
H3
ho o
H2 7
6 7
4 EI o 5
sym: Sðλo Þ
H

Elastic Buckling Analyses

The elastic buckling analyses are used for the stability analyses of the inverted-Y-shaped column system subject to the vertical load. The ideal
bracing stiffness requirements are determined for the inverted-Y-shaped column system to resist the large vertical load.

In-Plane Analysis: Buckling Load, Ideal Lateral Bracing, and Column-Base Rotational Spring Stiffness
The eigenproblem for an in-plane elastic buckling analysis of the PCB-IYSS can be formulated as Eq. (23)
½K i Di ¼ 0 ð23Þ

where Di = displacement amplitude vector (i.e., buckling mode vector) associated with the unconstrained in-plane element end displace-
ments ðuy1 ; θz1 ; uy2 ; θz2 Þ.
The eigenproblem can be solved by setting the determinant of [K i ] [Eq. (24)] to zero. The buckling axial force factor λcr;i can then be
determined using Eq. (25), which can be expressed in another way as Eq. (26) to formulate the ideal lateral spring stiffness requirement Rhi;id
for the vertical column to reach an in-plane axial force factor of λi
2 EI 3
ðRh;s þ Rhi Þ 3i
6 H 7
6     7
6 Rrh2 EI i Rhi Rrh EI i EI i 7
6 Sðλ Þ þ R − − Qðλ Þ − Cðλ Þ 7
6 i r
Rh;s þ Rhi H i
Rh;s þ Rhi H2 i
H 7
6 7
det½K i  ¼ det6   7
6 Rh;s Rhi EI i EI i 7
6 Tðλ Þ þ −Qðλ Þ 7
6 i
Rh;s þ Rhi H3 i
H2 7
6 7
4 5
EI i
sym: Sðλi Þ
H
2 3
2 EI i EI EI
6 ðSðλi Þ þ Rr;n λi Þ −Qðλi Þ 2i Cðλi Þ i 7
6 H H H 7
6 7
EI i 6 EI i EI 7
≈ ðRh;s þ Rhi Þ 3 · det6 ðTðλi Þ þ Rhi Þ 3 −Qðλi Þ 2i 7
H 6 H H 7
6 7
4 EI i 5
sym: Sðλi Þ
H
ðEI i Þ4 λ3i
¼ ðRh;s þ Rhi Þ ðRr;n ðRhi ðsin λi − λi cos λi Þ þ λ3i cos λi Þ þ sin λi ðRhi − λ2i ÞÞ ð24Þ
H 8 ϕðλi Þ

Rr;n ðRhi ðsin λcr;i − λcr;i cos λcr;i Þ þ λ3cr;i cos λcr;i Þ þ sin λcr;i ðRhi − λ2cr;i Þ ¼ 0 ð25Þ

−Rr;n λ3i cos λi þ λ2i sin λi

Rhi;id ¼ ð26Þ
Rr;n ðsin λi − λi cos λi Þ þ sin λi

where the approximation in Eq. (24) can be applied because Rh;s [Eq. (15)] is significantly larger than Rhi [Eq. (4)] and Rrh [Eq. (15)] for
economical designs [I si =ðAs L2 Þ ¼ ðrsi =LÞ2 ≪ 1 and Ac =As ≪ 1]. This approximation validates the efficient truss mechanism of the
A-shaped supporting columns, suggesting that the in-plane translational displacement boundary condition at the connection point O
can be simplified as fixed. Therefore, the supporting columns can be simplified as a pinned base with a rotational spring at the connection
point O for the in-plane analyses.

© ASCE 04018194-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 2.5 2.5

Pcr,i/PE,i (buckling load of vertical column)

Pcr,i/PE,i (buckling load of vertical column)

Pcr,max(Rr,n = + , 1, 0.3, 0.1, −0.1)
approximation for Rhi = +
Pcr,i
2 2

RhiEIi/H3
1.5 1.5

Vertical
1 1
column
2
Rhi/ = 1, 2, 6, +
Rr,n = −0.1, 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1, +
0.5 2 0.5
Rr,n i EIi/H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rr,n (rotational spring stiffness factor Rhi/ 2 (lateral bracing stiffness factor
(a) at base of vertical column owing to supporting columns) (b) at top of vertical column owing to cable system)

Fig. 8. In-plane elastic buckling analysis: (a) buckling load–column-base rotational spring stiffness relationship for given lateral bracing stiffness; and
(b) buckling load–lateral bracing stiffness relationship for given column-base rotational spring stiffness.

Based on Eq. (25), the influences of the lateral bracing stiffness in an explicit form as Eq. (28). As can be observed in Fig. 8(a), the
factor Rhi and the column-base rotational spring stiffness factor approximated relationship matches the original relationship closely
Rr;n on the vertical column buckling axial force Pcr;i
(¼ PE;i · λ2cr;i =π2 ) can be derived. Fig. 8(a) shows the relationship Rr;n ðsin λcr;i;max − λcr;i;max cos λcr;i;max Þ þ sin λcr;i;max ¼ 0 ð27Þ
between Pcr;i and Rr;n at given magnitudes of Rhi . A negative Rr;n
corresponds to a small supporting column rigidity relative to the ( 2.4
Pcr;i;max 2 − e−2.4Rr;n þRr;n =4 0 ≤ Rr;n ≤ 3
axial force (Fig. 7), which may result in an insufficient base support ¼ ð28Þ
and therefore a rapid decrease in the buckling axial force PE;i 2 Rr;n > 3
[Fig. 8(a)]. Therefore, it is recommended to use a positive
column-base rotational spring stiffness factor Rr;n for economical Another way to view the results is shown in Fig. 8(b), wherein
designs (corresponding to supporting column rigidity level of the column-base rotational spring stiffness factor Rr;n is fixed to
PE;si =Ps ≥ 0.49). given values, and the lateral bracing stiffness Rhi is varied along
For the lateral bracing stiffness of Rhi ¼ π2 and a positive Rr;n , the horizontal axis. Fig. 8(b) shows that the column buckling axial
it is interesting that Pcr;i is equal to the Euler buckling axial force force Pcr;i is significantly influenced by the lateral bracing stiffness
PE;i for all base fixity factors. For the lateral bracing stiffness of Rhi , which further demonstrates Winter (1958)’s conclusion on the
Rhi ¼ þ∞, Pcr;i corresponds to the buckling axial force of a lat- efficiency of lateral bracing mechanism, namely that very light
erally restricted column, which is defined here as the maximum bracing can be sufficient to produce very large gains in the axial
buckling axial force, Pcr;i;max . Based on Eq. (25), the axial force force capacity. Therefore, it is economical to provide a suitable
factor associated with Pcr;i;max can be determined as a function value of lateral bracing stiffness to increase the axial force capacity
of Rr;n [Eq. (27)]. This relationship can be approximately expressed of the vertical column.
Ps/PE,so (buckling load of supporting columns)
Ps/PE,so (buckling load of supporting columns)

1 1.2
2

1
(total material usage factor)

0.8
1.5
0.8
0.6
PE,o/P = 2, 3, 4 0.6
H/(Lcos ) = 1, 1.5, 2 1
0.4
0.4
H/(Lcos ) = 1, 1.5, 2
0.2 H/(Lcos ) = 1.5 Rho = + 0.5
0.2
GJstan2 /(EIso) = 1 GJstan2 /(EIso) = 1 Rho = + , = /3
GJstan2 /(EIso) = 1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 2 4 6 8 0
0 2 4 6 8
Rho,id/ 2 (lateral bracing stiffness factor) PE,o/P (vertical column rigidity) PE,o/P (vertical column rigidity)
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Out-of-plane elastic buckling analysis: (a) buckling load–lateral bracing stiffness relationship for given vertical column rigidity; (b) maximum
buckling load–vertical column rigidity relationship for laterally restricted situation; and (c) influence of vertical column rigidity on PCB-IYSS
economical design.

© ASCE 04018194-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 Out-of-Plane Analysis: Buckling Load, Ideal Lateral Bracing, and Economical Efficiency of Columns
The eigenproblem for an out-of-plane elastic buckling analysis of the PCB-IYSS can be formulated as Eq. (29)
½K o Do ¼ 0 ð29Þ
where Do = buckling mode vector associated with the unconstrained out-of-plane element end displacements ðuz1 ; θy1 ; uz2 ; θy2 Þ.
The eigenproblem can be solved by setting the determinant of [K o ] to zero. To solve this problem, the dimensionless form of [K o ] is
defined as [Ro ] in Eqs. (30) and (31). [Ro ] shows the relationship between the dimensionless global element end displacements and the
corresponding dimensionless global reaction forces. The coefficients in [Ro ] are functions of λo , λso , H=ðL cos ϕÞ (ratio of vertical height
between the vertical column and supporting columns), and GJ s tan2 ϕ=ðEI so Þ (a dimensionless factor defining torsional rigidity of supporting
columns). Thus, an analysis using [Ro ] could give more general results than using [K o ] directly
0  1
EI so
Fz1
B L 2 C
0 1 0 1 B C 0 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fz1 uz1 B  C uz1 =L

B EI so C
B C B C B M y1 cos φ C B C
B M y1 C Bθ C B L C B θy1 cos φ C
B C ¼ ½K o B y1 C ⇒ B C B C
BF C Bu C B  C ¼ 2½Ro B u =L C ð30Þ
@ z2 A @ z2 A B EI so C @ z2 A
B F C
L2
z2
M y2 θy2 B C θy2 cos φ
B   C
@ EI so A
M y2 cos φ
L
2 3
λ2so L cos φ λ2 λ2so L cos φ λ2so
6 Tðλo Þ λ2 H þ Tðλso Þ Qðλo Þ so − Qðλso Þ −Tðλo Þ Qðλo Þ 7
6 o λ2o λ2o H λ2o 7
6   7
6 λ2so H GJ s λ2so λ2so H 7
6 Sðλ Þ þ tan 2 φ þ Sðλ Þ −Qðλo Þ Cðλo Þ 2 7
6 o
λ2o L cos φ
so
λ2o λo L cos φ 7
6 EI so 7
½Ro  ¼ 6 7 ð31Þ
6 λ2so L cos φ Rho λ2so 7
6 Tðλo Þ þ −Qðλo Þ 2 7
6 λ2o H 2 λo 7
6 7
6 7
4 λ2so H 5
sym: Sðλo Þ 2
λo L cos φ

By setting the determinant of [Ro ] to zero [Eq. (32)], the ideal lateral spring stiffness factor requirement Rho;id for the column system to
reach out-of-plane axial force factors of λo and λso can be derived as Eq. (33)
Rho
det½Ro  ¼ detsub33 ð½Ro Þ þ det½Ro;noBrc  ¼ 0 ð32Þ
2

det½Ro;noBrc 
Rho;id ¼ −2 ð33Þ
detsub33 ð½Ro Þ

where [Ro;noBrc ] = dimensionless out-of-plane global structural stability stiffness matrix with no lateral bracing, and can be formulated by
setting Rho ¼ 0 in [Ro ]; and detsub33 ð·Þ = determinant of the submatrix that results from deleting Row 3 and Column 3 of a matrix.
Based on Eqs. (33) and (31), the relationship between the (out-of-plane buckling) axial force Ps =PE;so (¼ λ2so =π2 ) and ideal lateral bracing
stiffness factor Rho;id can be derived and plotted in Fig. 9(a), which examines behavior for typical magnitudes of PE;o =Pð¼ π2 =λ2o Þ ¼ 2, 3,
and 4 (which reflects the vertical column rigidity relative to the axial force). For deriving these curves, the other two factors in [Ro;noBrc ],
H=ðL cos ϕÞ and GJ s tan2 ϕ=ðEI so Þ, are set to typical values of 1.5 and 1, respectively. Similar to the in-plane stability responses, the buckling
axial force Ps can be significantly improved by providing a suitable out-of-plane lateral bracing stiffness Rho;id .
The vertical column rigidity PE;o =P can also be significant in influencing the buckling axial force of the supporting columns. For a typical
laterally restricted situation, the relationship between PE;o =P and the (maximum out-of-plane buckling) axial force Ps is shown in Fig. 9(b),
which examines behavior for H=ðL cos ϕÞ ¼ 1, 1.5, and 2 and a typical value of GJ s tan2 ϕ=ðEI so Þ ¼ 1. This relationship can be derived
using Eq. (34) based on Eq. (32) by setting Rho ¼ þ∞. The relationship suggests that the rigidities of the vertical column and supporting
columns can have many different combinations to conduct safe PCB-IYSS designs. For an economical design, a suitable increase in the
buckling axial force for the supporting columns can be achieved through a suitable increase in the vertical column rigidity
2 3
λ2so L cos φ λ2so λ2so
6 Tðλ Þ þ Tðλ Þ Qðλ Þ − Qðλ Þ Qðλ Þ 7
λ2o H λ2o λ2o
o so o so o
6 7
6   7
6 2
λso H GJ s λso H 7
2
detsub33 ð½Ro Þ ¼ det66 Sðλ Þ þ tan 2
φ þ Sðλ Þ Cðλ Þ 7¼0 ð34Þ
λ2o L cos φ λ2o L cos φ 7
o so o
6 EI so 7
6 7
4 λ2 H 5
sym: Sðλo Þ so
λ2o L cos φ

To further conduct an economical analysis, a dimensionless factor Φ for examining the total material usage is defined in Eq. (35), where
the cross-sectional area can be assumed to be proportional to the square root of the cross-sectional moment of inertia. For a typical laterally

© ASCE 04018194-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 restricted situation, the total material usage factor is plotted in effect from the vertical load. The results will give the inverse rela-
relationships with PE;o =P in Fig. 9(c), which examines behavior tionships between the bracing strength requirements and bracing
for H=ðL cos ϕÞ ¼ 1, 1.5, and 2, and typical values of stiffnesses, which can be used for the adequate bracing design brac-
GJ s tan2 ϕ=ðEI so Þ ¼ 1 and ϕ ¼ π=3. As can be observed, a mini- ing approach of PCB-IYSS in the following section.
mum material usage factor can be achieved by using a suitable Based on the section “Analysis of PCB-IYSS-Supported Ferris
value of vertical column rigidity. In the typical case discussed here, Wheel and Simplified Spring Model for Lateral Bracing Effect of
Fig. 9(c) suggests to use PE;o =P ¼ 2–4 for H=ðL cos ϕÞ ¼ 2–1 to Cable System,” the lateral loads acting on top of the column system
achieve the most economical material usage. Therefore, this eco- are considered to mainly consist of in-plane and out-of-plane lateral
nomical analysis curve can be used as a good reference for the loads Phi ¼ γ i EI i =H 2 and Pho ¼ γ o EI so =L2 , and bending mo-
out-of-plane design of PCB-IYSS ments M i ¼ β i EI i =H. In the second-order analyses, the element
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffi  2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi end displacements of the vertical column (Fig. 5) are formulated
H I o þ 2L I so 1 2 H 1 2 using the global structural stability stiffness matrix. Then, the
Φ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ cos φ þ
PL4 =E λo L cos φ λso cos φ element end reaction forces of the supporting columns and the ver-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tical column are obtained.

ð35Þ
Second-Order Analyses
The second-order analyses are used to formulate the structural dis-
placements, deformations, and internal forces of the inverted-
Y-shaped column system subject to the lateral loads and the P-delta
In-Plane Analysis: Element End Displacements and Reaction
Forces and Bending Moment Distribution
The relationship between the element end in-plane translational
displacements/rotation angles and global reaction translational
forces/bending moments is formulated as Eq. (36) using the global
structural stability stiffness matrix [K i ] [Eq. (14)]

0 1
0 1 0 1 2 0 30 1 0 1
uy1 B 0 C Tðλi Þ þ Rh;s Qðλi Þ − Rrh −Tðλi Þ Qðλi Þ uy1 =H 0
B C B C B
B 0 C C
6
6
7B C B C
B θz1 C B 0 C B EI C 6 Sðλi Þ þ Rr −Qðλi Þ Cðλi Þ 7
7B θz1 C B 0 C
½K i B C B C
Bu C ¼ BP C ¼ B γ i 2i C ⇒6 7BB C¼B C
C Bγ C ð36Þ
@ y2 A @ hi A BB H C
C
6
4 Tðλi Þ þ Rhi −Qðλi Þ 7
5 @ u y2 =H A @ iA
@ EI i A
θz2 Mi βi sym: Sðλi Þ θz2 βi
H

Based on the in-plane analysis subsection in the “Elastic Buck- formulated as Eq. (40) using Eqs. (60) and (61) in Appendix I,
ling Analyses” section, the in-plane translational displacement and the maximum bending moment Ms;max can be determined.
boundary condition at the connection point O (i.e., the base support In the case of a large axial force factor, λsi ≥ 0.742π
uy1 for the vertical column) can be simplified as fixed, as shown in (i.e., tan λsi ≥ −B2 =B1 ), the bending moment distribution is
Fig. 5(a). Thus, Eq. (36) can be simplified as Eq. (37) to derive the plotted as Fig. 10, and the maximum bending moment is located
three unconstrained element end displacements. The lateral dis- in the middle of the element. In the case of λsi < 0.742π, the
placement uy2 at the top of the column and rotation angle θz1 at maximum bending moment is the end moment M z̄1 . Thus, a fac-
the connection point are solved as Eq. (38) tor ms;max for the maximum bending moment can be defined as
2 30 1 0 1 Eq. (41), and it is also plotted in Fig. 5 along with the stability
Sðλi Þ þ Rr;n λ2i −Qðλi Þ Cðλi Þ θz1 0 coefficients. Based on Fig. 5, ms;max can be conservatively ap-
6 7B C B C proximated to 4 (for λsi ≤ π=0.7, i.e., PE;si =Ps ≤ 2) in simplified
6 Tðλi Þ þ Rhi −Qðλi Þ 5@ uy2 =H A ¼ @ γ i C
7 B C B
4 A calculations
sym: Sðλi Þ θ z2 β i
M z̄1 Mz̄2
ð37Þ m1 ¼ ¼ Sðλsi Þθz1 ; m2 ¼ ¼ Cðλsi Þθz1 ð39Þ
EI si =L EI si =L
β i ðλi −sin λi Þ
uy2 β i þ γ i þ sin λi −λi cos λi þsin λi =Rr;n  
¼ ; λ x λ x EI si
H Rhi − Rhi;id M s ðxs Þ ¼B1 cos si s − B2 sin si s
L L L
β i ðλi −sin λi Þ uy2
λ2i
− sin λi H λsi
θz1 ¼ − ð38Þ B1 ¼ m1 ¼ ðsin λsi − λsi cos λsi Þ θ ;
Rr;n ðsin λi − λi cos λi Þ þ sin λi ϕðλsi Þ z1
m þ m1 cos λsi λ
The bending moments of the vertical column and the supporting B2 ¼ 2 ¼ ðλsi sin λsi þ cos λsi − 1Þ si θz1
sin λsi ϕðλsi Þ
columns can be further calculated for the strength examination.
For the supporting columns, the only unconstrained element ð40Þ
end displacement is the rotation angle at the connection point,
and the element end bending moment factors are formulated as ( pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
M B21 þ B22 =θz1 λsi ≥ 0.742π
Eq. (39) using definition of the element stability stiffness matrix ms;max ðλsi Þ ¼ EI sis;max ¼ ð41Þ
coefficients. The bending moment distribution can then be L θz1 Sðλsi Þ λsi < 0.742π

© ASCE 04018194-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 Ps
The bending moments of the supporting columns can be
Mz1 = S(λsi)θz1EIsi/L further calculated for the strength examination. The element
end displacements in the local coordinate system can be deter-
mined as per Eq. (45) using the coordinate transformation
matrix [Eq. (20)]. The element end bending moment factors can
be determined as per Eq. (46) using the element stability stiff-
Ms,max = ms,max(λsi)θz1EIsi/L
ness matrix [Eq. (5)]

0 1 2 30 1 0 1
uz̄1 1 uz1 uz1
B C 6 7B C B C
B θx̄1 C ¼ 6 − sin φ 7 B C B C
@ A 4 − cos φ 5@ 0 A ¼ @ −θy1 sin φ A
θȳ1 sin φ − cos φ θy1 −θy1 cos φ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ð45Þ

      
m1 1 M ȳ1 Qðλso Þ Sðλso Þ uz̄1 =L
¼ ¼
m2 EI so =L M ȳ2 Qðλso Þ Cðλso Þ θȳ1
Mz2 = C(λsi)θz1EIsi/L   
Qðλso Þ Sðλso Þ uz1 =L
¼ ð46Þ
Fig. 10. In-plane bending moment distribution of supporting columns Qðλso Þ Cðλso Þ −θy1 cos φ
(λsi ≥ 0.742π).

For the vertical column, the element end bending moment fac-
tors can be derived as Eq. (42) using Eqs. (39) and (16). Its bending
Design of PCB-IYSS
moment distribution can then be formulated using Appendix I The solutions for the lateral displacements and rotation angle
M z1 −2M z̄1 −2Sðλsi Þθz1 EI si =L [Eqs. (38) and (44)] are used as the inverse relationships between
m1 ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ −Rr;n λ2i θz1 the bracing strength requirements and bracing stiffnesses. Then,
EI i =H EI i =H EI i =H
based on the adequate bracing concept in the “Introduction,” the
M z2 Mi
m2 ¼ ¼ ¼ βi ð42Þ stiffness requirements of the cable system (as column-top lateral
EI i =H EI i =H bracing) and supporting columns (as column-base in-plane rota-
tional spring-supported bracing) are determined by examining their
Out-of-Plane Analysis: Element End Displacements and strength limits. The design procedure for PCB-IYSS is then
Reaction Forces established.
The relationship between the element end out-of-plane translational
displacements/rotation angles and global reaction translational Adequate Stiffness Design for Cables and Supporting
forces/bending moments [Eq. (43)] is formulated and derived to Columns
a dimensionless form based on Eq. (30). The lateral displacement
uz2 at the top of the column is solved as Eq. (44) and further derived
to the right term using Eqs. (32) and (33) Strength Limits for Cables and Lateral Bracing Stiffness
Requirements
2 3 2 3 0 0 1
uz1 0 For the design of pretensioned cables, the maximum strain limit
6 7 6 7 B C εmax should be set to ensure the cables do not yield or fracture,
6 θy1 7 6 0 7 B 0 C
½K o 6 7¼6
6u 7 6P 7 Bγ
7 ¼ B EI C
so C
and a suitable limit may be some fraction of the yield strain.
4 z2 5 4 ho 5 @ o 2 A The minimum strain limit εmin should be set as per Eq. (47)
L
θy2 0 for the lateral bracing effect to maintain effectiveness (Pan et al.
0
2 3 0 1 2017a)
uz1 =L 0
6 7 B C sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
6 θy1 cos φ 7 1 B 0 C
⇒6 7 −1 B C 3 5 ρgLc sin φc 2
6 u =L 7 ¼ 2 ½Ro  B γ C ð43Þ εmin ¼ ð47Þ
4 z2 5 @ oA 3 Ec
θy2 cos φ 0
where ρ = mass density of cables; and g = acceleration due to
uz2 γ o γ det ð½R Þ
¼ ½Ro −1 ð3; 3Þ ¼ o sub33 o gravity.
L 2 2 det½Ro  Based on these strain limits, the in-plane and out-of-plane
γ o detsub33 ð½Ro Þ γo braced point lateral displacement limits can be established as
¼ ¼ ð44Þ
Rho detsub33 ð½Ro Þ þ 2 det½Ro;noBrc  Rho − Rho;id per Eq. (48) (Pan et al. 2017a), where the initial pretensioning strain
of the cables should be designed following Eq. (49). An ideal initial
where ½Ro −1 ð·; ·Þ = element in corresponding row and column of pretensioning strain can be set as ðεmax þ εmin Þ=2, which will result
the inverse matrix ½Ro −1 , which is derived here using the adjugate in the largest possible braced point displacements [right terms in
matrix approach. Eq. (48)]

© ASCE 04018194-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

  
uy2 L2 L2c ðεmax − εmin Þ 1. Vertical column stability design
¼ c minf ε0 − εmin ; εmax − ε0 g ≤ Select in-plane axial force level P/PE,i and
H max Lci H 2Lci H out-of-plane rigidity level PE,o/P
 
uz2 L2 L2c ðεmax − εmin Þ Column flexural rigidities EIi and EIo: Eq. (55)
¼ c minf ε0 − εmin ; εmax − ε0 g ≤
L max Lco L 2Lco L
ð48Þ 2. Supporting column stability design
In-plane supporting column rigidity PE,si/Ps: Eqs. (52), (53), (17)
Maximum out-of-plane buckling axial force Pso,max: Eq. (34)
εmax þ εmin
ε0 ≤ ð49Þ Column flexural rigidities EIsi and EIso: Eq. (56)
2

The lateral bracing stiffness requirements Rhi;re and Rho;re 3. Cable adequate stiffness design
can then be formulated as Eq. (50) based on Eqs. (38) and (44), Bracing stiffness requirements Rhi,re and Rho,re: Eq. (50)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

respectively. For the special case of λi ¼ π, Rhi;re can be simplified Cable axial rigidity EcAc: Eq. (57)
as Eq. (51)
4. Columns strength examination
β i þ γ i þ sin λi −λβii ðλ i −sin λi Þ
cos λi þsin λi =Rr;n
Disp./rotations at the connection point O: Eqs. (38) and (43)
Rhi ≥ Rhi;re ¼ Rhi;id þ u Element end bending moment factors: Eqs. (42) and (46)
ð Hy2 Þmax Moment distributions and maximum moments: Appendix I
γo Examine column strength under compression and bending
Rho ≥ Rho;re ¼ Rho;id þ ð50Þ
ðuLz2 Þmax
Fig. 11. Design procedure for PCB-IYSS.
2β i þ γ i
Rhi;re ¼ π2 þ u ð51Þ
ð Hy2 Þmax
Design Procedure

In-Plane Strength Limit for Supporting Columns and This section describes the design procedure for PCB-IYSS. For
Stiffness Requirement designing the structure, the following parameters are known:
For the in-plane stability analyses, the supporting columns can be (1) geometry conditions L, φ, H, Lc , Hc , φc , Lci , φci , Lco , and
simplified as a pinned base with a rotational spring at the connec- φco ; (2) material properties E, Ec , and ρ, and strain limits εmax
tion point O. This rotational spring can be viewed as a special brac- and εy ; and (3) vertical load Pd , column top lateral loads Phi
ing as the base support for the vertical column. Thus, the adequate and Pho , and bending moments M i and M o .
bracing concept can also be applied for the design of this special A design procedure as shown in Fig. 11 can be followed for the
bracing and thereby the supporting columns. The rotation angle at PCB-IYSS.
the connection point solved from the in-plane second-order analy- 1. Vertical Column Stability Design
sis [Eq. (38)] can be used to examine the strength of the special For an economical PCB-IYSS design, it is important to select
bracing and determine the adequate bracing stiffness. a suitable value of the in-plane and out-of-plane axial force lev-
The in-plane maximum bending moment of the supporting col- els, P=PE;i (denoting the in-plane axial force level) and PE;o =P
umns is examined in Eq. (52), which gives the rotation angle limit (denoting the out-of-plane column rigidity level). For the selec-
at the connection point tion of the in-plane axial force level, Fig. 8 shows that a column-
  base rotational spring stiffness factor of Rr;n ¼ 0 corresponds to
EI EI P in-plane buckling axial force level of Pcr;i =PE;i ¼ 1; however,
jM s;max j ¼ ms;max si jθz1 j ≤ si εy − s further increases in the axial force level P=PE;i may require a
L zsi EAs
  large Rr;n and thereby a large supporting column rigidity
1 L P
⇒ jθz1 j ≤ θz1;max ¼ εy − s ð52Þ PE;si =Ps (Fig. 7), which may result in an uneconomical supporting
ms;max zsi EAs column design. Thus, a suitable in-plane axial force level should
be selected as P=PE;i < 1. For the selection of the out-of-plane
where zsi = maximum distance to central axis for cross-section of column rigidity level PE;o =P, an economical analysis curve can
supporting columns. be plotted, e.g., Fig. 9(c) suggests using PE;o =P ¼ 2–4 for
Combing Eqs. (38) and (52), the rotational spring stiffness re- H=ðL cos ϕÞ ¼ 2–1 [GJ s tan2 ϕ=ðEI so Þ ¼ 1 and ϕ ¼ π=3].
quirement of the in-plane base support can be determined as The flexural rigidities EI i and EI o of the vertical column
Eq. (53), which can be simplified as Eq. (54) for the special case can be determined as Eq. (55) based on the selected axial force
of λi ¼ π. levels
This stiffness requirement of the base support can be used to
determine the rigidity requirement of the supporting columns based PE;i H 2 1 PH 2 PE;o H2 PE;o PH 2
on their relationship established in Fig. 7 and Eq. (17) EI i ¼ 2
¼ ; EI o ¼ ¼
π P=PE;i π2 π2 P π2
 βi ðλi −sin λi Þ uy2 
ð55Þ
 
 λ2i −sin λi H 
 θ  − sin λi
 z1;max  2. Supporting Column Stability Design
Rr;n ≥ Rr;n;re ¼ ð53Þ The supporting column can then be designed. For the
sin λi − λi cos λi
in-plane behavior, the section “In-Plane Strength Limit for
Supporting Columns and Stiffness Requirement” can be used,
βi
Rr;n;re ¼ 2
ð54Þ and the required supporting column rigidity PE;si =Ps is deter-
π θz1;max mined using Eqs. (52), (53), and (17). For the out-of-plane

© ASCE 04018194-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 behavior, the (maximum out-of-plane buckling) axial force of
the supporting columns, Ps , is derived based on Eq. (34), or
obtained as an approximate value using Fig. 9(b). The out-
of-plane axial force of the supporting columns can be set to
a suitable fraction χ of the (maximum out-of-plane buckling)
axial force [e.g., 0.85 as recommended by Pan et al. (2017a)].
The flexural rigidities EI si and EI so of the supporting col-
umns can be determined as Eq. (56) based on the selected axial
force levels.
Then, using the results from Eqs. (55) and (56), detail the
vertical column and supporting columns to satisfy the flexural
rigidities
PE;si L2 PE;si Ps L2 PE;so L2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presented in-plane and out-of-plane elastic buckling and
second-order analyses for the stability and adequate bracing design
of PCB-IYSS. The main findings are summarized as follows:
• The matrix structural analysis approach using the exact element
stability stiffness matrix facilitates the stability analysis of axial-
loaded beam–column systems. Elastic buckling and second-
order analyses can be conveniently conducted after formulating
the global structural stability stiffness matrix. In addition, the
bending moment distribution can be examined using Appendix I
because the maximum bending moment may not be located at
element ends due to geometric nonlinearity.

EI si ¼ ¼ ; EI so ¼ • The stability analyses for the PCB-IYSS are complicated be-

π2 Ps π 2 π2 cause of both in-plane and out-of-plane lateral deformations
1 Ps L 2 and possible geometric nonlinearities in both vertical column
¼ ð56Þ and supporting columns. For simplifying the analyses, the sup-
χ PPE;so
s π2
porting columns can be viewed as a base support for the vertical
column, which is further simplified as a pinned base with a ro-
3. Cable Adequate Stiffness Design tational spring in the in-plane analyses. The economical analysis
Calculate the lateral bracing stiffness requirements Rhi;re and curve from the out-of-plane analyses can be used as a good re-
Rho;re using Eq. (50). Then, determine the axial rigidity Ec Ac of ference for the balance between the material usages of the ver-
the cables using Eq. (57) tical column and supporting columns.
9 • In cable-braced axial-loaded beam–column systems, the bracing
2Ec Ac L2ci EI i >
K hi ¼ ≥ Rhi;re 3 > > effect of the cable system, simplified as lateral springs at the
L3c H = braced points, produces very large gains in the buckling axial
2E A L2 EI > > force by providing a more efficient lateral-load transfer mechan-
K ho ¼ c 3c co ≥ Rho;re 3so > ;
Lc L ism. For the design of these systems, the adequate bracing

concept is suitable for establishing rigorous design procedures;
Rhi;re EI i L3c Rho;re EI so L3c
⇒ Ec Ac ≥ max ; ð57Þ particularly, the procedure established in Fig. 11 can be
2L2ci H3 2L2co L3 followed for PCB-IYSS designs.
4. Columns Strength Examination
The examination of the column strength should consider
both in-plane and out-of-plane load effects. For the in-plane Appendix I. Bending Moment Distribution for
strength examination, the strength of the supporting columns Axial-Loaded Beam–Columns
is satisfied by specifying its stiffness requirement (section
For matrix structural analysis of axial-loaded beam–columns, the
“In-Plane Strength Limit for Supporting Columns and Stiffness
maximum bending moment may not be located at element ends.
Requirement”), thus, the in-plane strength of the vertical column
The bending moment distribution should be examined.
should be examined in this step. For the out-of-plane strength
Eq. (58) shows the differential equation of equilibrium for an
examination, out-of-plane strength of the supporting columns is
axial-loaded beam–column (Pan et al. 2017a). The general solution
more critical because the out-of-plane rigidity of the vertical col-
of Eq. (58) can be obtained as Eq. (59), which formulates the trans-
umn is provided sufficiently based on the economical analysis.
lational displacement y as a function of location x. Thus, bending
To examine the column strength, the in-plane and out-of-plane
moment distribution function can be formulated in a general form
translational displacements/rotation angles at the connection
as Eq. (60)
point O are calculated first using Eqs. (38) and (43), respectively.
 2 2
Then, the element end bending moment factors of the vertical d4 y λ d y
column under in-plane load effect and the supporting columns þ ¼0 ð58Þ
dx4 H dx2
under out-of-plane load effect are determined as per Eqs. (42)
and (46). Finally, Appendix I is used to determine the bending λx λx
moment distributions and maximum bending moments of the ex- y ¼ Q1 cos þ Q2 sin þ Q3 x þ Q4 ð59Þ
H H
amined columns, and the column strengths under compression
and bending are examined.  
d2 y λx λx EI
Also, an alternative of this design step can be realized MðxÞ ¼ −EI 2 ¼ B1 cos − B2 sin
through a second-order finite-element analysis, which is com- dx H H H
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  
monly used in engineering practices. λx EI
A design example is presented in Appendix II to further dem- ¼ B21 þ B22 cos þ θB1B2 ð60Þ
H H
onstrate the design steps. In addition, the design steps may be
iterated to refine the results. where λ = axial force factor; H = length of the element; EI = flexu-
For the design of a large Ferris wheel support system, it is ral rigidity; Q1 , Q2 , Q3 , and Q4 = factors for the possible element
expected that engineers will always create finite-element models displacement function; B1 and B2 = dimensionless factors for the
for the final examination. Nevertheless, the design procedure bending moment distribution; and θB1B2p
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi = ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
incremental factor with
provided here could be helpful in defining a starting point cos θ ¼ B1 = B21 þ B22 and sin θ ¼ B2 = B21 þ B22 .
for design by getting the preliminary sizing of the structural The factors B1 and B2 are derived as Eq. (61) using bending
members. moment boundary condition [Eq. (62)]. The maximum bending

© ASCE 04018194-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 moment can then be determined based on the bending moment dis- PE;si Ps L2 2000×602
tribution function [Eq. (60)] EI si ¼ 2
¼ 0.528× ¼ 3.85×105 kN · m2
Ps π π2
m2 þ m1 cos λ 1 Ps L 2 1 2000×602
B1 ¼ m1 B2 ¼ ð61Þ EI so ¼ 2
¼ ¼ 1.02×106 kN · m2
sin λ χPPs
π 0.85×0.839 π2
E;so

ð66Þ
EI EI
Mð0Þ ¼ M 1 ¼ m1 MðHÞ ¼ −M2 ¼ −m2 ð62Þ
H H
where some of the calculations in this design example uses the
where M 1 and M 2 (m1 and m2 ) = element end reaction bending data from the final design results (e.g., GJ s tan2 φ=ðEI so Þ, zsi for
moments (corresponding dimensionless bending moment factors). θz1;max ) for consistency. In practical designs, this should be real-
The sign conventions of MðxÞ, M 1 , and M2 are defined in Fig. 5(a). ized in a trial-and-error process or an iterative procedure of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design steps.
The vertical column and supporting columns are detailed
Appendix II. Design Example as a rectangular tube with an outer section of 0.46 × 0.87 m
(in-plane × out-of-plane) and a thickness of 20 mm, which
This section presents an elementary design example for PCB-IYSS. has in-plane and out-of-plane flexural rigidities of 3.86 × 105
The following parameters are given: (1) geometry conditions and 1.05 × 106 kN · m2 , respectively. The axial force factors
L ¼ 60 m, φ ¼ π=3, H ¼ 40 m, Hc ¼ 70 m, Lci ¼ 55 m, and are then determined as Eq. (67)
Lco ¼ 25 m; (2) material properties E ¼ Ec ¼ 2 × 1011 N=m2 ,
ρ ¼ 7,850 kg=m3 , and strain limits εmax ¼ 0.004 mm=mm and sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
εy ¼ 0.002 mm=mm; and (3) vertical load Pd ¼ 2,000 kN, bend- PH 2 2000 × 402
ing moment factor β i ¼ 0.1, and lateral-load factors γ i ¼ 0.1 λi ¼ ¼ ¼ 2.88;
EI i 3.86 × 105
and γ o ¼ 0.2. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1. Vertical Column Stability Design PH 2 2000 × 402
The axial forces of the vertical column and supporting col- λo ¼ ¼ ¼ 1.75
EI o 1.05 × 106
umns can be determined as Eq. (63). The in-plane axial force sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
level is selected as P=PE;i ¼ 0.85 and the out-of-plane column Ps L2 2000 × 602
rigidity level PE;o =P is selected as PE;o =P ¼ 3. The flexural ri- λsi ¼ ¼ ¼ 4.32;
EI si 3.86 × 105
gidities EI i and EI o of the vertical column are then determined
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
as Eq. (64)
Ps L2 2000 × 602
λso ¼ ¼ ¼ 2.62 ð67Þ
P ≈ Pd
EI so 1.05 × 106
P
Ps ≈ ¼P ð63Þ
2 cos φ
3. Cable Adequate Stiffness Design
The lateral bracing stiffness requirements, Rhi;re and Rho;re ,
1 PH 2 1 2000 × 402 are calculated based on Eq. (50) following Eqs. (68)–(72). Then,
EI i ¼ 2
¼ ¼ 3.81 × 105 kN · m2 the axial rigidity of the cables is determined as Eq. (73). When
P=PE;i π 0.85 π2
providing this axial rigidity of the cables, the actual lateral brac-
PE;o PH 2 2000 × 402 ing stiffnesses Rhi and Rho are shown as Eq. (74)
EI o ¼ 2
¼3 ¼ 9.73 × 105 kN · m2 ð64Þ
P π π2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2. Supporting Column Stability Design Lc ¼ H2c þ L2ci þ L2co ¼ 702 þ 552 þ 252 ¼ 92.5 m;
For the in-plane behavior, the supporting column rigidity pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PE;si =Ps is determined as Eq. (65) using Eqs. (52), (53), and L2ci þ L2co 552 þ 252
sin φc ¼ ¼ ¼ 0.653 ð68Þ
(17). For the out-of-plane behavior, the maximum out-of-plane Lc 92.5
buckling axial force of the supporting columns, Ps =PE;so , is
determined to be 0.839 using Eq. (34) with PE;o =P ¼ 3,
H=ðL cos φÞ ¼ 4=3, and GJ s tan2 φ=ðEI so Þ ¼ 0.957. The out- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of-plane axial force level χ of the supporting columns is set  ffi
3 5 ρgLc sin φc 2
to 0.85. The flexural rigidities EI si and EI so of the supporting εmin ¼
3 Ec
columns are then determined as Eq. (66) sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
  3 5 7850 × 9.8 × 92.5 × 0.653 2
1 L P 1 60 ¼ ¼ 9.65 × 10−4
θz1;max ¼ εy − s ≈ × 0.002 ¼ 0.13 3 2 × 1011
ms;max zsi EAs 4 0.46=2  
βi 0.1 uy2 L2 ðε − εmin Þ 92.52 ð0.004 − 9.65 × 10−4 Þ
Rr;n;re ≈ ¼ 2 ¼ 0.078 ¼ c max ¼
2
π θz1;max π × 0.13 H max 2Lci H 2 × 55 × 40
 1.15 ¼ 5.90 × 10−3
PE;si Rr;n
¼ 0.49 þ 2.5  
Ps L=ðH cos φÞ uz2 L2 ðε − εmin Þ 92.52 ð0.004 − 9.65 × 10−4 Þ
 1.15 ¼ c max ¼
0.078 L max 2Lco L 2 × 25 × 60
¼ 0.49 þ 2.5 × ¼ 0.528 ð65Þ
60=ð40 cosðπ=3ÞÞ ¼ 8.66 × 10−3 ð69Þ

© ASCE 04018194-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 −Rr;n λ3i cos λi þ λ2i sin λi −0.078 × 2.883 cos 2.88 þ 2.882 sin 2.88
Rhi;id ¼ ¼ ¼ 7.96
Rr;n ðsin λi − λi cos λi Þ þ sin λi 0.078ðsin 2.88 − 2.88 cos 2.88Þ þ sin 2.88
2β i þ γ i 2 × 0.1 þ 0.1
Rhi;re ≈ π2 þ ¼ π2 þ ¼ 60.7 ð70Þ
5.90 × 10−3
u
ð Hy2 Þmax
2 3
17.66 7.47 −13.97 12.75
6 7
6 14.63 −12.75 6.31 7
6 7
Eq: ð27Þ ⇒ ½Ro  ¼ 6 R 7 ð71Þ
6 13.97 þ ho −12.75 7
4 2 5
sym: 10.68
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

det½Ro;noBrc  γo 0.2
Rho;id ¼ −2 ¼ 8.66; Rho;re ¼ Rho;id þ ¼ 8.66 þ ¼ 31.8 ð72Þ
detsub33 ð½Ro Þ ðuLz2 Þmax 8.66 × 10−3

Rhi;re EI i L3c 60.7 × 3.86 × 105 × 92.53 Rho;re EI so L3c 31.8 × 1.05 × 106 × 92.53
Ec Ac ≥ max ¼ ¼ ¼ 9.79 × 104 kN ð73Þ
2L2ci H3 2 × 552 × 403 2L2co L3 2 × 252 × 603

K hi 2E A L2 =L3 2 · 9.79 × 104 · 552 =92.53

Rhi ¼ 3
¼ c c ci3 c ¼ ¼ 124.1; Rho ¼ 31.8 ð74Þ
EI i =H EI i =H 3.86 × 105 =403

4. Column Strength Examination

The in-plane and out-of-plane translational displacements/rotation angles at the connection point O are calculated to determine the
element end bending moment factors. Then, the bending moment distribution factors and then the maximum bending moments of the
vertical column under in-plane deformation and the supporting columns under out-of-plane deformation can be determined. The in-plane
and out-of-plane strength are examined following Eqs. (75)–(77) and Eqs. (78)–(80), respectively
β i ðλi −sin λi Þ 0.1×ð2.88−sin 2.88Þ
uy2 β i þ γ i þ sin λi −λi cos λi þsin λi =Rr;n 0.1 þ 0.1 þ sin 2.88−2.88 cos 2.88þsin 2.88=0.078
¼ ¼ ¼ 2.08 × 10−3
H Rhi − Rhi;id 124.1 − 7.96
β i ðλi −sin λi Þ uy2
λ2i
− sin λi H
0.1ð2.88−sin 2.88Þ
− sin 2.88 × 2.08 × 10−3
2.882
θz1 ¼ − ¼− ¼ −6.27 × 10−2 ð75Þ
Rr;n ðsin λi − λi cos λi Þ þ sin λi 0.078ðsin 2.88 − 2.88 cos 2.88Þ þ sin 2.88

m1 ¼ −Rr;n λ2i θz1 ¼ 0.078 × 2.882 × 6.27 × 10−2 ¼ 0.041; m2 ¼ β i ¼ 0.1

m2 þ m1 cos λi 0.1 þ 0.041 cos 2.88
B1 ¼ m1 ; B2 ¼ ¼ ¼ 0.234 ð76Þ
sin λi sin 2.88

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0.46=2

M max P z P 2000
z þ ¼ B21 þ B22 i þ ¼ 0.0412 þ 0.2342 þ ¼ 1.56 × 10−3 < εy ð77Þ
EI i i EA H EA 40 1.03 × 107

Eq: ð39Þ ⇒ ð uz1 =L θy1 uz2 =L θy2 Þ ¼ ð −4.26 8.22 8.64 25.94 Þ × 10−3 ð78Þ

         
m1 Qðλso Þ Sðλso Þ uz1 =L 5.28 2.99 −4.26 0.0348
−3
¼ ¼ × 10 ¼−
m2 Qðλso Þ Cðλso Þ −θy1 cos φ 5.28 2.29 −8.22=2 0.0319
m þ m1 cos λso 0.0319 þ 0.0348 cos 2.62
B1 ¼ m1 ¼ −0.0348; B2 ¼ 2 ¼− ¼ −0.00347 ð79Þ
sin λso sin 2.62

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0.87=2

Mso;max P z P 2000
z þ s ¼ B21 þ B22 so þ s ¼ 0.03482 þ 0.003472 þ ¼ 0.45 × 10−3 < εy ð80Þ
EI so so EAs L EAs 60 1.03 × 107
Apart from the determination of Ps =PE;so using Eq. (34) in the second step and the matrix calculation for [Ro ] in third step and uzj =θyj
in the fourth step, all the calculations are simple to apply. Therefore, the design based on the established design procedure is straightfor-
ward and could be helpful in defining a starting point for design.

© ASCE 04018194-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194

 Acknowledgments
This study is the third of a series of studies on a research topic
started in the spring of 2016, namely application of the adequate
bracing concept and the matrix structural analysis approach for the
analysis and design of cable-braced axial-loaded beam–column
systems. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
provided by the National Science Fund of China (Grant No.
51725803). The authors also express their sincere appreciation
to the reviewers of this paper for their constructive comments
and suggestions.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A, As , Ac = cross-sectional areas of vertical column,
supporting columns, and cables, respectively;
B1 , B2 = factors for bending moment distribution
function of axial-loaded beam–columns;
Di , Do = displacement amplitude vectors (i.e., buckling
mode vectors);
[Dðπ  φÞ] = coordinate transformation matrix;
detsub33 ð·Þ = determinants of the submatrix that results from
deleting row 3 and column 3 of a matrix;
E, Ec = elastic moduli of columns and cables,
respectively;
G = shear modulus;
g = acceleration of gravity;
H, L = lengths of vertical column and supporting
columns, respectively;
I i ðI o Þ, I si ðI so Þ = cross-sectional moment of inertias of
vertical columns and supporting columns,
respectively;
i, o (subscript) = properties associated with in-plane and out-
of-plane deformations, respectively;
J, J s = St. Venant torsional constants of vertical column
and supporting columns;
[K e ] = exact element stability stiffness matrices;
[K i ] = in-plane global structural stability stiffness
matrices;
K hi , K ho = in-plane and out-of-plane lateral bracing
stiffnesses of cable system;
K hi;id (K ho;id ), K hi;re (K ho;re ) = ideal and adequate lateral
bracing stiffness requirements, respectively;
[K Os;i ], [K Os;o ] = global stiffness matrix at connection point
O owing to stiffness of supporting columns;
[K o ], [Ro ] = out-of-plane global structural stability stiffness
matrix and its dimensionless form;
[K o;noBrc ], [Ro;noBrc ] = out-of-plane global structural stability
stiffness matrix with no lateral bracing and its
dimensionless form;
[K s;i ], [K s;o ] = element stiffness matrix of supporting columns
associated with the unconstrained in-plane and
out-of-plane displacements, respectively;
Lc , Hc , φc = length, vertical height, and inclination angle of
cables;
Lcb = length of the connecting beam;
Lci , Lco = in-plane and out-of-plane projection lengths of
cables;
M i β i EI i =H = in-plane bending moment at the top of the column;
M s;max (ms;max ) = maximum bending moment (factor) for
supporting columns under in-plane deformations;
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194
MðxÞ = column bending moment as a function of x;
M1 , M2 = element end reaction bending moments;
m1 , m2 = element end bending moment factors;
P, Ps = axial compression forces of vertical column and
supporting columns, respectively;
Pcr;i (λcr;i ), Pcr;so (λcr;so ) = in-plane and out-of-plane
buckling axial force (factor) of vertical column
and supporting columns, respectively;
Pcr;i;max (λcr;i;max ) = maximum in-plane buckling
axial force (factor) of vertical column for
infinity lateral bracing;
Pd = externally-applied vertical load at the top of the
column;
PE;i (PE;o ), PE;si (PE;so ) = Euler buckling axial forces
for vertical column and supporting columns,
respectively;
Phi γ i EI i =H 2 , Pho γ o EI so =L2 = in-plane and
out-of-plane lateral loads at the top of the column;
Px;fw , Py;fw , Pz;fw , M x;fw , M y;fw , M z;fw = six-degree-
of-freedom loads from the Ferris wheel acting
on the support system;
Q1 , Q2 , Q3 , Q4 = factors for displacement curve of
axial-loaded beam–columns;
Rhi , Rho = dimensionless lateral bracing stiffness factors of
cable system;
Rhi;id (Rho;id ), Rhi;re (Rho;re ) = ideal and adequate
lateral bracing stiffness factor requirements,
respectively;
Rh;s , Rrh , Rr = dimensionless stiffness factors of in-plane base
support for vertical column owing to stiffness of
supporting columns;
Rr;n = normalized rotational spring stiffness factor of
in-plane base support;
rsi = cross-sectional radius of gyration of supporting
columns;
s, c (subscript) = properties associated with
supporting columns and cables, respectively;
T, Q, S, C, ϕ = functions of axial force factor λ in the stability
stiffness matrix;
ux=y=zj , θx=y=zj , Fx=y=zj , M x=y=zj (ux̄=ȳ=z̄j , θx̄=ȳ=z̄j , Fx̄=ȳ=z̄j , M x̄=ȳ=z̄j ) =
element end displacements and reaction forces
of vertical column (supporting columns)
(j ¼ 1 or 2);
x, y, z ðx̄; ȳ; z̄Þ = local coordinate system for vertical Column
Element I and supporting Column Element IIa,
respectively;
zi , zsi (zso ) = maximum distance to central axis for cross-
sections of vertical column and supporting
columns, respectively;
εmin , εmax = strain limits for cables to maintain effectiveness;
εy = yield strain of columns;
ε0 = cable pretensioning strain;
θB1B2 = incremental factor for the bending moment
distribution function;
λi (λo ), λsi (λso ) = axial force factors for vertical column
and supporting columns, respectively;
ρ = mass density of cables;
Φ = total material usage factor;
φ = inclination angle of supporting columns; and
χ = out-of-plane axial force level of the supporting
columns (relative to the maximum out-of-plane
buckling axial force).
04018194-17 J. Struct. Eng.
 References
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D. 1997. “Elastic stability of beam-columns with
flexural connections under various conservative end axial forces.”
J. Struct. Eng. 123 (9): 1194–1200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1997)123:9(1194).
Chajes, A., and W. S. Chen. 1979. “Stability of guyed towers.” J. Struct.
Div. 105 (1): 163–174.
Ekhande, S. G., M. Selvappalam, and M. K. S. Madugula. 1989. “Stability
functions for three-dimensional beam-columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 115 (2):
467–479. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:2(467).
Gantes, C., R. Khoury, J. J. Connor, and C. Pouangare. 1993. “Modeling,
loading, and preliminary design considerations for tall guyed towers.”
Comput. Struct. 49 (5): 797–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(93)90027-B.
Guo, Y. L., P. P. Fu, P. Zhou, and J. Z. Tong. 2016. “Elastic buckling and
load resistance of a single cross-arm pre-tensioned cable stayed
buckling-restrained brace.” Eng. Struct. 126: 516–530. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.013.
Guo, Y., J. Tong, X. Wang, and B. Zhang. 2017. “Subassemblage tests
and numerical analyses of buckling-restrained braces under pre-
compression.” Eng. Struct. 138: 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2017.02.046.
Irvine, H. M., and M. J. O’Sullivan. 1979. “Elastic stability of simple guyed
towers.” Appl. Ocean Res. 1 (4): 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141
-1187(79)90028-2.
McGuire, W., R. H. Gallagher, and R. D. Ziemian. 2014. Matrix structural
analysis. 2nd ed. Middletown, DE: Wiley.
Munoz, H. R. 1991. “Elastic second-order computer analysis of beam–
columns and frames.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Texas at Austin. http://hdl
.handle.net/10945/25892.
Nie, J. G., W. H. Pan, M. X. Tao, and Y. Z. Zhu. 2017. “Experimental and
numerical investigations of composite frames with innovative composite
transfer beams.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (7): 04017041. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001776.
Pan, W. H., M. R. Eatherton, M. X. Tao, Y. Yang, and X. Nie. 2017a.
“Design of single-level guyed towers considering interrelationship
between bracing strength and rigidity requirements.” J. Struct. Eng.
© ASCE 04018194-18
View publication stats J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(10): 04018194
143 (9): 04017128. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0001857.
Pan, W. H., M. R. Eatherton, X. Nie, and J. S. Fan. 2018a. “Design of
pre-tensioned cable stayed buckling-restrained brace considering inter-
relationship between bracing strength and stiffness requirements.”
J. Struct. Eng. 144 (10): 04018169. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0002096.
Pan, W. H., M. X. Tao, and J. G. Nie. 2017b. “Fiber beam-column element
model considering reinforcement anchorage slip in the footing.” Bull.
Earthquake Eng. 15 (3): 991–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016
-9987-3.
Pan, W. H., M. X. Tao, X. Nie, and J. S. Fan. 2018b. “Rebar anchorage slip
macro model considering bond stress distribution: Monotonic loading
and model application.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (8): 04018097. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002096.
Przemieniecki, J. S. 1968. Theory of matrix structural analysis. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tong, J., and Y. Guo. 2017. “Global buckling prevention of end collared
buckling-restrained braces: Theoretical numerical analyses and design
recommendations.” Eng. Struct. 152: 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.engstruct.2017.09.014.
Tong, J., and Y. Guo. 2018. “Numerical investigations on elastic buckling
and hysteretic behavior of steel angles assembled buckling-restrained
braces.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 144: 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jcsr.2018.01.015.
Wang, L., and T. A. Helwig. 2005. “Critical imperfections for beam bracing
systems.” J. Struct. Eng. 131 (6): 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:6(933).
Winter, G. 1958. “Lateral bracing of columns and beams.” J. Struct. Div.
84 (2): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784408179.
Yang, Y. B., and W. McGuire. 1986. “Stiffness matrix for geometric non-
linear analysis.” J. Struct. Eng. 112 (4): 853–877. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:4(853).
Yuan, S. 2008. Programming structural mechanics. [In Chinese.] 2nd ed.
Beijing: Higher Education.
Ziemian, R. D., ed. 2010. Guide to stability design criteria for metal
structures. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
J. Struct. Eng.