Ironton-Russell Bridge: Application of Vibration-Based

Cable Tension Estimation

Seyed Ehsan Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf 1; Mehdi Norouzi 2; Randall J. Allemang 3;
Victor J. Hunt 4; Arthur Helmicki 5; and Chandrasekar Venkatesh 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The vibration-based tension estimation method is a common approach for health assessment of cable structures. In this meth-
odology, cable natural frequencies along with mechanical and geometrical properties of the cable were used to estimate the cable tension.
In this paper, following the vibration-based tension estimation method, stay cables of new Ironton-Russell Bridge are evaluated and the results
compared against the lift-off test results. It is shown that the difference between estimated tension forces and directly measured tension forces
(lift-off test) is negligible. A numerical analysis is also performed to investigate the impact of errors in measuring cable natural frequencies
and cable axial stiffness on estimated cable tensions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002054. © 2018 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction
Tracking the variation of cable tension over time is a common
approach for damage diagnosis of cables in cable structures (Yang
et al. 2015; Nazarian et al. 2016a, b; Scarella et al. 2016; Bao et al.
2017; Huang et al. 2017; Pacitti et al. 2017). This approach is also
used for health monitoring of different parts subjected to tension
loads in civil structures, like steel eyebars in bridges (Mazurek
2016). However, ambient parameters like temperature variation can
also alter dynamic behavior of cables and superstructure of the
bridge (Norouzi et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2017; Zhao et al. 2017).
Knowing cable length, cable mass per unit length, cable axial stiff-
ness, and cable bending stiffness (in cases where bending stiffness
is considerable), natural frequencies of cables can be calculated
using a cable model (Yang et al. 2014). In a vibration-based cable
tension estimation method, this procedure is reversed; the cable ten-
sion is estimated by adjusting the cable tension in the cable model
so that the error function representative of the difference between
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Mechanical and Materials
Engineering, Univ. of Cincinnati, 717 Engineering Research Center,
ML-30, Cincinnati, OH 45221 (corresponding author). Email: Hajiagsn@
mail.uc.edu
2
Research Associate, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computing
Systems, Univ. of Cincinnati, 717 Engineering Research Center, ML-30,
Cincinnati, OH 45221. Email: Norouzmi@mail.uc.edu
3
Professor and Head of Structural Dynamics Research Laboratory,
Dept. of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, College of Engineering
and Applied Science, Univ. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. Email:
Randall.Allemang@uc.edu
4
Associate Research Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and
Computing Systems, Univ. of Cincinnati, 721 Engineering Research
Center, ML-30, Cincinnati, OH 45221. Email: Victor.Hunt@uc.edu
5
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computing Systems,
Univ. of Cincinnati, Rhodes 812J, ML-30, Cincinnati, OH 45221. Email:
Arthur.Helmicki@uc.edu
6 selected to investigate the impact of errors in cable natural frequen-
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, Univ. of Cincinnati, 717 Engineering Research Center,
ML-30, Cincinnati, OH 45221. Email: venkatcr@mail.uc.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 3, 2017; approved on
December 8, 2017; published online on April 13, 2018. Discussion period
open until September 13, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
the theoretical cable natural frequencies (coming from the cable
model) and experimentally measured cable natural frequencies is
minimized (Haji Agha Mohammad et al. 2017a). Different combi-
nations of cable models and cable response measurement tech-
niques have been used to estimate the cable tensions in numerous
cable structures around the world following the vibration-based
approach. Cable tension of two stay cables of Hwamyung Bridge
in Korea was estimated using three methods: lift-off test, electro-
magnetic sensors, and the vibration-based approach. It was shown
that the vibration-based approach is an inexpensive method in both
labor and cost (Cho et al. 2012). Using conventional accelerometers
to measure the ambient response of stay cables of the Danube
Channel bridge in Austria, cable tensions were accurately estimated
following the vibration-based approach (Geier et al. 2006). In
another work, the microwave interferometer technique was used
to measure the ambient response of stay cables of Cesare Cantu
Bridge in Italy. The taut string model was then used along with
mechanical and geometrical cable properties to estimate the cable
tensions (Gentile 2010). Using a similar cable model and using
adaptive sparse time-frequency analysis method to identify the
instantaneous natural frequencies of cables from acceleration mea-
surements (Bao et al. 2017) suggested a method to estimate the
instantaneous cable tension. Wireless sensor networks (Cho et al.
2010; Sim et al. 2013) and vision-based methods (Kim and Kim
2011; Feng et al. 2017) have also been used extensively to measure
cable natural frequencies in the vibration-based cable tension
estimation methodology.
In this paper, the cable model of Mehrabi and Tabatabai
(Mehrabi and Tabatabai 1998) is chosen for estimating the cable
tension of stay cables of the new Ironton-Russell bridge (120 cables).
The estimated tensions are then compared against lift-off test results.
Moreover, reviewing different cable models, five cables with me-
chanical and geometrical characteristics representative of a wide
range of stay cables in cable-stayed bridges around the world are
cies and cable axial stiffness on the estimated cable tensions.
Lift-Off Test
The lift-off test is usually used to measure the tension of a limited
number of strands in a stay cable. The tension of each strand in the

© ASCE 04018066-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 sag-extensibility and bending stiffness (Cunha et al. 2001). The taut
string model may result in unsatisfactory tension estimations when
the cable sag and bending stiffness are considerable (Casas 1994).
Using the vibration equation of an axially tensioned beam is a
common approach for considering the bending stiffness of the cable
(Ceballos and Prato 2008; Fang and Wang 2010). Irvine and
Caughey (1974) considered the sag and extensibility of the cable
for the first time. They introduced the dimensionless parameter λ2
(sag-extensibility parameter) as

2
2 8d L
λ ¼ ð1Þ
L ðHLe =EAÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Stay cable cross-section.

where d = cable sag; L = cable chord length; EA = axial stiffness of
the cable; H = cable tension force; and Le is calculated as
stay cable is then assumed to be the mean value of measured

2 
tensions. The overall stay cable tension is calculated by multiplying d
Le ¼ L 1 þ 8 ð2Þ
the acquired mean value for strand tension by the number of strands L
within the stay cable. Fig. 1 shows the cross-section of a stay cable
in new Ironton-Russell bridge composed of 31 0.6-in.-diameter, If the ratio of sag to span is 1∶8 or less (flat-sag cable), the
low-relaxation, weldless, seven-wire strands [ASTM A416 relationship between cable sag d and cable tension force H is
(ASTM 2017), grade 270] individually greased and sheathed inside obtained as (Irvine 1981)
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sheathing. Because of the
tension force within each strand, strand ends lock at anchor mgL2
H¼ ð3Þ
holes using “lock-off” wedges [Fig. 2(a)]. In a lift-off test, a load 8d
cell, hydraulic jack, and displacement meter are used to measure
where m = mass per unit length of cable. Using Eq. (3) to eliminate
each strand’s tension (Cho et al. 2012) [Fig. 2(a)].
cable sag d in Eqs. (1) and (2), the nondimensional parameter
Initially, the hydraulic jack pulls the free end of the strand with
λ2 can be rewritten as
an increasing force, and the corresponding displacement of strand
is recorded simultaneously (the force–displacement curve is plot- 2
2
2
ðmgL
H Þ LEA ðmgL
H Þ
ted). The strand end remains in its place until the applied force of λ ¼ ; Le ≅ L 1 þ ð4Þ
the hydraulic jack reaches the strand tension force. At this point, the HLe 8
lock-off wedge pops out of the anchor block hole. This situation is
The dimensionless parameter λ2 plays a significant role in the
designated as “lift-off” (Fujiwara and Sakai 2016). When lift-off
static and dynamic behavior of cables. Regarding Eq. (4), λ2 rep-
happens, the slope of the force–displacement curve will reduce
resents the geometry and axial stiffness of the cable. Small values
[Fig. 2(b)]. Consequently, the force at the slope transition point
of λ2 correspond to more extensible cables. On the other hand,
is considered the strand tension.
large values of λ2 usually represent relative inextensibility of cables
(Irvine 1981). According to the literature review done by Johnson
Cable Models et al. (2003), typical values of λ2 for stay cables in cable-stayed
bridges range from 1 or smaller (Gimsing 1997) to around 4
The taut string model is the simplest cable model that has been (Pacheco et al. 1993; Xu and Yu 1998). Introducing the dimension-
used to estimate the tension force of stay cables neglecting cable less parameter ζ (bending stiffness parameter), Zui et al. (1996)

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic of lift-off test; and (b) force-displacement diagram in lift-off test.

© ASCE 04018066-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 and in the middle of the region shown in Fig. 3) with length of
L ¼ 100 m, mass per unit length of m ¼ 200 kg=m, modulus of
elasticity of E ¼ 196.5 GPa, tension force of H ¼ 1,200 kN,
cross-sectional area of A, and second moment of inertia I are
presented in Table 1.

Vibration-Based Cable Tension Estimation Method

The vibration-based cable tension estimation method consists of
two steps (Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf et al. 2017b). First, natu-
ral frequencies of the cable are experimentally measured. Using a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cable model along with geometrical and mechanical properties of

Fig. 3. Intervals for λ2 and ζ.
tried to consider the cable bending stiffness in the cable tension
estimation process
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
H
ζ¼L ð5Þ
EI
where EI = bending stiffness of the cable. Based on Eq. (5), the
nondimensional parameter ζ characterizes the bending stiffness
of the cable; a large value of ζ indicates that the flexural stiffness
of the cable is negligible, whereas for stay cables with moderate
to large diameters, ζ is relatively small (Bouaanani 2006). Using
the dimensionless parameters ζ and λ2 , Ren et al. (2005) classified
different types of cables and proposed formulas to estimate the ca-
ble tension considering sag-extensibility and bending stiffness of
the cable separately. Ricciardi and Saitta (2008) developed a con-
tinuous cable model capable of considering sag-extensibility and
bending stiffness simultaneously. Mehrabi and Tabatabai (1998)
also introduced a finite difference cable model that considers
variation in cross-sectional area along the cable, bending stiffness,
sag-extensibility, end conditions, and intermediate springs and
dampers. They also proposed a simple cable model for uniform
cables with no intermediate spring or damper when λ2 < 3.1 and
ζ > 50 that covers more than 95% of stay cables that are being used
in cable-stayed bridges around the world.
In this study, based on typical values of λ2 and ζ for stay cables
used in bridges, five cables with dimensionless parameters within
the intervals 0.1 < λ2 < 3.1 and 50 < ζ < 650 are chosen to inves-
tigate the impact of errors in measurement of cable natural frequen-
cies and cable axial stiffness on the cable tension force estimated
following the vibration-based tension estimation approach. Using
the finite difference cable model (Mehrabi and Tabatabai 1998), the
first five natural frequencies of selected cables (on the boundary
the cable, an error function E representative of the difference be-
tween experimentally measured natural frequencies and analytical
cable natural frequencies (coming from the cable model) is con-
structed. The error function is in terms of the cable tension H
and cable bending stiffness EI (if bending stiffness is considered
in the cable model). Second, an optimization method is used for
minimizing the acquired error function to estimate the cable tension
(Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf et al. 2017a). Fig. 4 summarizes
how the error function EðH; EIÞ representative of the difference
between first N experimentally-measured natural frequencies of
the cable fexpr , r ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; N and first N analytical natural
frequencies of the cable f r , r ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; N is calculated using
conventional accelerometers. There are other measurement tech-
niques like wireless sensor networks (Sim et al. 2013), laser Dop-
pler (Cunha et al. 2001), microwave interferometer (Gentile 2010),
and image processing (Kim and Kim 2011; Feng et al. 2017; Kim
et al. 2017) that can be used to measure the dynamic response of the
cable in the form of displacement, velocity, and acceleration. The
measured dynamic response of the cable is then processed to ex-
tract the cable natural frequencies. Fourier transform–based meth-
ods are one of the common techniques used in vibration-based
cable tension estimation methods (Kim et al. 2013; Yu et al.
2014). Stochastic subspace identification (SSI) methods (Lardies
2010; Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf et al. 2017b) and a combina-
tion of the random decrement (RD) technique with different exper-
imental modal parameter identification methods like wavelet
transform (Ta et al. 2006; Lardies and Minh-Ngi 2011) and the
Ibrahim time domain (ITD) method (Wu et al. 2012) have also been
used to identify the cable natural frequencies. In this paper, a simple
cable model (Mehrabi and Tabatabai 1998) is used to calculate the
nth natural frequency of the cable in rad/sec, ωn

 
2 ð4 þ n2 π2 =2Þ μ
ωn ¼ nω1s ð1 þ 0.039μÞ 1 þ þ − 0.24
ζ ζ2 ζ
ð6Þ
where the nondimensional parameter μ for the first in-plane bend-
ing mode (n ¼ 1) is calculated as shown in Eq. (7), whereas it is
zero for higher-order in-plane modes (n > 1) and all out-of-plane
modes

Table 1. Cable properties

Cable type Aðm2 Þ × 10−6 Iðm4 Þ × 10−6 λ2 ζ f 1 (Hz) f 2 (Hz) f 3 (Hz) f4 (Hz) f 5 (Hz)
1 22.9676 24.4275 0.1 50 0.4055 0.8133 1.2318 1.6642 2.1148
2 80.3865 6.1069 0.1 650 0.3900 0.7769 1.1655 1.5540 1.9427
3 137.8054 2.7142 3.1 650 0.4342 0.7769 1.1672 1.5540 1.9430
4 195.2243 1.5267 3.1 50 0.4431 0.8133 1.2323 1.6642 2.1149
5 252.6432 0.9771 1.6 350 0.4135 0.7791 1.1697 1.5590 1.9495

© ASCE 04018066-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Calculation of error function in vibration-based cable tension estimation method.

ðmgl=HÞ2 LEA 100-year-old Ironton-Russell Bridge, opened in 1922 and demol-

μ¼ ð7Þ ished in May 2017.
HLð1 þ ðmgl=HÞ2 =8Þ
The main structure of the bridge has 120 stay cables; 15 pairs of
stay cables in the Ohio back span, 30 pairs in the main span, and
In addition, ω1s is the first natural frequency of a taut string
15 pairs in the Kentucky back span. Stay cables are labeled as one
rffiffiffiffi of two groups, B for back span sides of the bridge and M for the
π H main span side of the bridge, preceded by numbers starting from 1
ω1s ¼ ð8Þ
L m (or 16) for the cables nearest the towers to 15 (or 30) for the cables
farthest from the towers (Zhang et al. 2015) (Fig. 6). The cables on
Using the simple cable model (Mehrabi and Tabatabai 1998) in the upstream side of the bridge are marked as R (Right), and the
the framework shown in Fig. 4, the error function is calculated in ones on the downstream side of the bridge are marked as L (Left).
terms of ζ and ω1s (instead of EI and H). Minimizing the acquired The number of strands in each stay cable varies from a minimum
error function results in the desired values of parameters ζ and ω1s . of 14 located in the cables nearest the towers to a maximum of 33 in
The cable tension force H can then be estimated by substituting the the stay cables farthest from the towers on the back span. The
parameter ω1s into Eq. (8). mechanical and geometrical properties of stay cables of the new
Ironton-Russell bridge are presented in Appendix I.

New Ironton-Russell Bridge

Measurement Procedure
The new Ironton-Russell Bridge is a two-lane cable-stayed bridge
in the United States that connects Ironton, Ohio, to Russell, Capacitive PCB 3701G2FA3G accelerometers were used to
Kentucky (Fig. 5). The bridge is a replacement for the nearly measure the ambient response of stay cables for 320 s (frequency

© ASCE 04018066-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. New Ironton-Russell bridge. (Image by authors.)

Fig. 6. New Ironton-Russell bridge.

Fig. 7. Test setup.
resolution of 0.003125 Hz) with a sampling frequency of 64 Hz
(Fig. 7). The auto-power spectrums of the measured ambient
response of stay cables B30R and B16L are shown in Fig. 8.
As shown in Fig. 1, there is no grout used to fill the space
between the strands and HDPE sheathing; hence, strands inside
the sheathing are free to move. Stay cables away from the towers
(like B30R) are longer, with lower inclinations. As a result, a
larger portion of strands lie on the sheathing and vibrate with
the sheathing as a unit. Consequently, auto-power spectrums
of the corresponding stay cables show distinct frequency con-
tents [Fig. 8(a)]. On the other hand, stay cables that are close
to the towers are shorter, with higher inclination, and as a result,
the stands inside the sheathing move independently and the ac-
quired auto-power spectrums are not as clean as long cables
[Fig. 8(b)]. The natural frequencies of the stay cables of the
new Ironton-Russell Bridge were measured using the peak-
picking method and are presented in Appendixes II and III. Fig. 9
shows the natural frequencies of representative short and long
stay cables of the new Ironton-Russell bridge with respect to
mode number n.
Based on Fig. 9, it is seen that the measured cable natural
frequencies of the new Ironton-Russell bridge fit well to straight
lines. Consequently, the coefficient of the nonlinear term n3 in
Eq. (6) is negligible
π2
ω1s ð1 þ 0.039μÞ ≅0 ð9Þ
2ζ 2

Fig. 8. Auto-power spectrum of ambient response of stay cable: (a) B30R; and (b) B16L.

© ASCE 04018066-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Cable natural frequencies versus mode shape n.
Eq. (9) indicates that the value of the bending stiffness
parameter ζ is relatively large and, consequently, based on
Eq. (5), the bending stiffness of the stay cables in the new
Ironton-Russell bridge is relatively small. As a result, simpler
cable models that consider only the axial stiffness of the cable
EA could also be used in the framework shown in Fig. 4 to
estimate the cable tensions of the new Ironton-Russell bridge
without incurring a noticeable loss in accuracy. Following
the procedure shown in Fig. 4, the error function for each stay
cable is formed and then minimized using the Newton–Raphson
method (Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf et al. 2017b). Figs. 10
and 11 show the convergence patterns of ω1s and ζ for stay
cables B30R and B16L.
Substituting the identified values of the parameter ω1s into
Eq. (8), stay cable tensions are estimated as shown in Appendix IV.
As mentioned earlier, based on the linear relationship of cable natu-
ral frequencies and mode number (shown in Fig. 9), it was expected
to identify relatively large values for the bending stiffness param-
eter ζ. The identified nondimensional parameters λ2 for stay cables
of the new Ironton-Russell bridge are also between 0.0178 for stay
1s
(a)
Fig. 10. Convergence of ω1s for stay cable: (a) B30R; and (b) B16L.
(a)
Fig. 11. Convergence of ζ for stay cable: (a) B30R; and (b) B16L.
© ASCE 04018066-6
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066
cable M17R and 0.1903 for stay cable B15L, which shows the rel-
ative extensibility of the stay cables in the new Ironton-Russell
bridge. For each stay cable of the new Ironton-Russell Bridge,
the lift-off test was performed for five strands. The tension of each
strand in the stay cable is assumed to be the average value of the
measured tensions. Figs. 12 and 13 show the average value of the
lift-off test results (error band of 3σ). As shown in Figs. 12 and
13, the estimated tensions are in a good agreement with the lift-off
test results.
Error Analysis
Among geometrical and mechanical cable properties required to
estimate cable tension using the vibration-based approach, meas-
uring cable natural frequencies and cable axial stiffness is more
challenging. In this section, the sensitivity of the estimated cable
tension to error in measured natural frequencies of the cable ωexp n ,
n ¼ 1; 2; 3; : : : ; N and the cable axial stiffness EA will be inves-
tigated. Observing that the value of the error in cable natural
frequencies does not affect the behavior of the error in the esti-
mated tension for different values of N, a 5% error was intro-
duced to the first, second, third, and fourth natural frequencies
of the cables presented in Table 1 and the consequent errors in
estimated tensions were investigated (Fig. 14). Moreover, Fig. 15
shows the error in tension estimation corresponding to a 1, 5, and
10% error in calculation of cable axial stiffness EA. According to
Figs. 14 and 15, estimated cable tension approaches the cable
tension values calculated using errorless cable properties as
the number of natural frequencies used to build the error function
N increases. Consequently, in Figs. 14 and 15, N increases until
the difference between two consecutive tension estimations be-
comes less than 1%. The corresponding tension is then consid-
ered the estimated cable tension. Additionally, based on Fig. 14,
an increase or decrease in measured natural frequencies of the
cable causes an overestimation or underestimation of the cable
1s
(b)
(b)
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Lift-off test results and estimated tensions for stay cables on the left side of the bridge.
tension force in comparison with the case where there is no error
in cable properties. However, this trend for the error in cable
axial stiffness EA is reversed; an increase or decrease in EA
causes an underestimation or overestimation of the cable tension
force in comparison with the case where there is no error in
cable properties (Fig. 15). Moreover, Fig. 14 shows that for a
fixed number of natural frequencies used to construct the error
function N, a specific percentage of the error in the natural
frequency of higher modes affects the estimated tension more
than the same level of error in the natural frequencies of lower
modes.
Using the first five cable natural frequencies to build the
error function (N ¼ 5) and introducing a 10% error to the
third natural frequency, the cable tension estimation error
for cables with dimensionless parameters 0.1 < λ2 < 3.1 and
50 < ζ < 650 are shown in Fig. 16. Similar to Fig. 16, Fig. 17
shows the error in the cable tension estimation process caused
by a 5% error in calculation of cable axial stiffness EA when
there are five cable natural frequencies used to build the error
function.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066
In Figs. 16 and 17, It is shown that for a fixed value of λ2 ,
the error in the estimated tension increases as ζ decreases.
Based on Eq. (5), the nondimensional parameter ζ represents
the importance of cable flexural stiffness in the overall dynamic
behavior of the cable so that ζ decreases as the diameter of the
cable increases (Bouaanani 2006). Consequently, the vibration-
based cable tension estimation method used in this paper is less
accurate for cables with large diameters (higher flexural stiff-
ness values). On the other hand, for a fixed value of ζ, the error
slightly increases when λ2 increases. The effects of cable sag,
angle of inclination, and axial stiffness are represented in the
cable tension estimation method through the sag-extensibility
parameter λ2. Increasing sag increases λ2 , whereas increased
angle of inclination and axial stiffness decreases λ2 (Johnson
et al. 2003). Therefore, the vibration-based cable tension esti-
mation method used in this paper gets less accurate when the
angle of inclination and axial stiffness of the cable decrease
and cable sag increases. However, based on Figs. 16 and 17,
variation in tension estimation accuracy caused by variation of
λ2 is negligible in comparison with variation of ζ. It is worth
04018066-7 J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Lift-off test results and estimated tensions for stay cables on the right side of the bridge.

mentioning that using different numbers of cable natural
frequencies in the tension estimation process and introducing
various error levels to cable natural frequencies and cable axial
stiffness resulted in behavior similar to that shown in Figs. 16
and 17.
Conclusion
Using vibration-based tension estimation methodology, cable ten-
sions of stay cables of the new Ironton-Russell Bridge were esti-
mated and the results compared against lift-off test measurements.
It was shown that the estimated results are in a good agreement with
the lift-off test results. Five cables with mechanical and geometrical
properties representative of a substantial portion of stay cables in
cable-stayed bridges around the world were then picked to numeri-
cally investigate the effects of natural frequency measurement
errors:
• Estimated cable tension force converges to the actual cable ten-
sion as the number of cable natural frequencies used to build the
error function increases;
• An increase or decrease in cable natural frequencies results in an
overestimation or underestimation of cable tension force;
• An increase or decrease in cable axial stiffness results in an
underestimation or overestimation of cable tension force;
and
• The error in estimated tension force increases as the diameter of
the stay cable increases (ζ decreases).

© ASCE 04018066-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 10 10

5 5

Error (%)

Error (%)
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) N (b) N

10 10

5 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Error (%)

Error (%)
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10
2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7
(c) N (d) N

10 5% increase in the 1
st
natural frequency
nd
5% increase in the 2 natural frequency
5 rd
Error (%)

5% increase in the 3 natural frequency

th
5% increase in the 4 natural frequency
0
5% decrease in the 1 st natural frequency
nd
-5 5% decrease in the 2 natural frequency
rd
5% decrease in the 3 natural frequency
th
-10 5% decrease in the 4 natural frequency
2 3 4 5 6 7 No error in natural frequencies
(e) N

Fig. 14. Tension estimation error due to 5% error in natural frequency of cable types: (a) 1; (b) 2; (c) 3; (d) 4; and (e) 5.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

1% increase in EA
5% increase in EA
10% increase in EA
1% decrease in EA
5% decrease in EA
10% decrease in EA
No error

(e)

Fig. 15. Tension estimation error due to error in measurement of axial stiffness of cable types: (a) 1; (b) 2; (c) 3; (d) 4; and (e) 5.

© ASCE 04018066-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 4 -3.2

3.8
Error (%)

Error (%)
-3.3
3.6
0 -3.4 3.5
3.4
100 3
3.2 200 -3.5 2.5
3.5 300 700 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 400 600 1.5

2.5 500
2 500 400 1
1.5 300
1 600 200 0.5 2
0.5 100 0
(a) 2 0 700 (b) 0

Fig. 16. Tension estimation error due to (a) 10% increase; and (b) 10% decrease in the third natural frequency of the cable when N ¼ 5.

0 0.4
Error (%)
Error (%)

-0.2 0.2
3.5 0
3 100
-0.4 2.5 0 200
2 3.5 300
700 3
600 1.5 400
500 2.5
400 2 500
1 1.5
300 1 600
200 0.5 2 0.5
100 2 0 700
(a) 0 0 (b)

Fig. 17. Tension estimation error due to (a) 5% increase; and (b) 5% decrease in cable axial stiffness EA when N ¼ 5.

Appendix I. Mechanical and Geometrical Properties of Stay Cables of New Ironton-Russell Bridge

Cable Number of strands L (ft) m (kg=m) Effective steel area (mm2 )

B15R 33 430.553 46.7692 4,635.5
B14R 28 428.091 39.7999 3,933.7
B13R 21 425.628 30.5099 2,953.7
B12R 21 392.723 30.5099 2,953.7
B11R 21 365.642 30.5099 2,953.7
B10R 21 338.849 30.5099 2,953.7
B9R 19 312.416 27.9199 2,673.7
B8R 18 286.447 26.5999 2,533.7
B7R 17 261.085 24.9106 2,391.9
B6R 17 236.517 24.9106 2,391.9
B5R 17 213.025 24.9106 2,391.9
B4R 17 190.202 24.9106 2,391.9
B3R 16 169.149 23.5906 2,251.9
B2R 15 148.767 22.2706 2,111.9
B1R 14 130.457 20.9506 1,971.9
M1R 14 129.837 20.9506 1,971.9
M2R 15 148.025 22.2706 2,111.9
M3R 17 168.776 24.9106 2,391.9
M4R 17 190.133 24.9106 2,391.9
M5R 18 213.554 26.5999 2,533.7
M6R 19 237.755 27.9199 2,673.7
M7R 20 263.093 29.2399 2,813.7

© ASCE 04018066-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Appendix I (Continued.)
Cable Number of strands L (ft) m (kg=m) Effective steel area (mm2 )
M8R 22 289.27 31.8799 3,093.7
M9R 22 316.08 31.8799 3,093.7
M10R 23 343.393 33.1999 3,233.7
M11R 24 371.099 34.5199 3,373.7
M12R 25 399.118 35.8399 3,513.7
M13R 26 427.39 37.1599 3,653.7
M14R 29 455.957 41.1199 4,073.7
M15R 29 484.612 41.1199 4,073.7
M30R 29 484.611 41.1199 4,073.7
M29R 29 455.957 41.1199 4,073.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M28R 26 427.39 37.1599 3,653.7

M27R 25 399.118 35.8399 3,513.7
M26R 24 371.099 34.5199 3,373.7
M25R 23 343.393 33.1999 3,233.7
M24R 22 316.08 31.8799 3,093.7
M23R 22 289.27 31.8799 3,093.7
M22R 20 263.093 29.2399 2,813.7
M21R 19 237.755 27.9199 2,673.7
M20R 18 213.554 26.5999 2,533.7
M19R 17 190.133 24.9106 2,391.9
M18R 17 168.777 24.9106 2,391.9
M17R 15 148.025 22.2706 2,111.9
M16R 14 129.837 20.9506 1,971.9
B16R 14 130.457 20.9506 1,971.9
B17R 15 148.767 22.2706 2,111.9
B18R 16 169.149 23.5906 2,251.9
B19R 17 190.202 24.9106 2,391.9
B20R 17 213.025 24.9106 2,391.9
B21R 17 236.517 24.9106 2,391.9
B22R 17 261.085 24.9106 2,391.9
B23R 18 286.448 26.5999 2,533.7
B24R 19 312.416 27.9199 2,673.7
B25R 21 338.849 30.5599 2,953.7
B26R 21 365.642 30.5599 2,953.7
B27R 21 392.723 30.5599 2,953.7
B28R 21 425.589 30.5599 2,953.7
B29R 28 428.047 39.7999 3,933.7
B30R 33 430.505 46.7692 4,635.5
B15L 33 430.684 46.7692 4,635.5
B14L 28 428.187 39.7999 3,933.7
B13L 21 425.693 30.5099 2,953.7
B12L 21 392.723 30.5099 2,953.7
B11L 21 365.642 30.5099 2,953.7
B10L 21 338.849 30.5099 2,953.7
B9L 19 312.416 27.9199 2,673.7
B8L 18 286.447 26.5999 2,533.7
B7L 17 261.085 24.9106 2,391.9
B6L 17 236.517 24.9106 2,391.9
B5L 17 213.025 24.9106 2,391.9
B4L 17 190.202 24.9106 2,391.9
B3L 16 169.149 23.5906 2,251.9
B2L 15 148.767 22.2706 2,111.9
B1L 14 130.457 20.9506 1,971.9
M1L 14 129.837 20.9506 1,971.9
M2L 15 148.025 22.2706 2,111.9
M3L 17 168.776 24.9106 2,391.9
M4L 17 190.133 24.9106 2,391.9
M5L 18 213.554 26.5999 2,533.7
M6L 19 237.755 27.9199 2,673.7
M7L 20 263.093 29.2399 2,813.7
M8L 22 289.27 31.8799 3,093.7
M9L 22 316.08 31.8799 3,093.7
M10L 23 343.393 33.1999 3,233.7
M11L 24 371.099 34.5199 3,373.7
M12L 25 399.118 35.8399 3,513.7

© ASCE 04018066-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Appendix I (Continued.)
Cable Number of strands L (ft) m (kg=m) Effective steel area (mm2 )
M13L 26 427.39 37.1599 3,653.7
M14L 29 455.957 41.1199 4,073.7
M15L 29 484.612 41.1199 4,073.7
M30L 29 484.611 41.1199 4,073.7
M29L 29 455.957 41.1199 4,073.7
M28L 26 427.39 37.1599 3,653.7
M27L 25 399.118 35.8399 3,513.7
M26L 24 371.099 34.5199 3,373.7
M25L 23 343.393 33.1999 3,233.7
M24L 22 316.08 31.8799 3,093.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M23L 22 289.27 31.8799 3,093.7

M22L 20 263.093 29.2399 2,813.7
M21L 19 237.755 27.9199 2,673.7
M20L 18 213.554 26.5999 2,533.7
M19L 17 190.133 24.9106 2,391.9
M18L 17 168.777 24.9106 2,391.9
M17L 15 148.025 22.2706 2,111.9
M16L 14 129.837 20.9506 1,971.9
B16L 14 130.457 20.9506 1,971.9
B17L 15 148.767 22.2706 2,111.9
B18L 16 169.149 23.5906 2,251.9
B19l 17 190.202 24.9106 2,391.9
B20L 17 213.025 24.9106 2,391.9
B21L 17 236.517 24.9106 2,391.9
B22l 17 261.085 24.9106 2,391.9
B23l 18 286.448 26.5999 2,533.7
B24l 19 312.416 27.9199 2,673.7
B25L 21 338.849 30.5599 2,953.7
B26L 21 365.642 30.5599 2,953.7
B27L 21 392.723 30.5599 2,953.7
B28L 21 425.644 30.5599 2,953.7
B29L 28 428.11 39.7999 3,933.7
B30L 33 430.576 46.7692 4,635.5

Appendix II. Measured Natural Frequencies of Stay Cables of New Ironton-Russell Bridge in Hz

Cable f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f 10 f11 f12 f 13 f 14 f 15

B15R 0.925 1.834 2.753 3.672 4.584 5.481 6.403 7.316 8.216 9.075 10.07 10.97 11.85 12.67 13.58
B14R 0.95 1.884 2.825 3.763 4.703 5.65 6.575 7.513 8.444 9.375 10.3 11.2 12.13 13.04 13.96
B13R 1.018 2.037 3.029 4.066 5.081 6.119 7.134 — — — — — — — —
B12R 1.081 2.15 3.216 4.294 5.353 6.394 7.453 8.534 9.578 10.59 11.56 12.67 — — —
B11R 1.191 2.375 3.547 4.719 5.913 7.019 8.228 9.356 10.48 11.65 — — — — —
B10R 1.222 2.441 3.644 4.859 6.072 7.159 — — — — — — — — —
B9R 1.375 2.741 4.103 5.463 6.791 8.147 9.494 10.77 12.08 — — — — — —
B8R 1.375 2.741 4.1 5.447 6.75 8.147 9.447 — — — — — — — —
B7R 1.441 2.869 4.297 5.719 7.122 8.506 9.853 — — — — — — — —
B6R 1.584 3.156 4.681 6.266 7.8 — — — — — — — — — —
B5R 1.9 3.781 5.625 7.453 — — — — — — — — — — —
B4R 2.063 4.119 6.106 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B3R 2.297 4.516 6.609 8.769 — — — — — — — — — — —
B2R 2.413 4.809 7.119 9.35 11.51 — — — — — — — — — —
B1R 2.572 4.994 7.422 — — — — — — — — — — — —
M1R 2.509 4.866 7.138 10.07 — — — — — — — — — — —
M2R 2.678 5.341 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
M3R 2.094 4.153 6.15 8.069 — — — — — — — — — — —
M4R 1.931 3.866 5.769 7.641 9.516 11.26 13.24 — — — — — — — —
M5R 1.647 3.294 4.919 6.534 8.153 9.716 11.31 12.88 — — — — — — —
M6R 1.588 3.178 4.763 6.303 7.85 9.419 10.91 12.38 — — — — — — —
M7R 1.544 3.072 4.6 6.072 7.569 9.128 10.58 — — — — — — — —
M8R 1.338 2.659 3.984 5.291 6.559 7.9 9.259 10.41 11.68 13 — — — — —
M9R 1.238 2.463 3.694 4.822 6.038 7.3 8.525 — — — — — — — —
M10R 1.134 2.263 3.388 4.497 5.603 6.728 7.759 8.972 9.963 11.13 12.18 13.33 — — —
M11R 1.147 2.284 3.419 4.553 5.688 6.8 7.931 9.037 10.12 11.32 12.25 13.43 — — —
M12R 0.9844 1.956 2.941 3.903 4.884 5.856 6.734 7.769 8.647 9.775 10.67 11.63 12.57 13.51 14.43
M13R 0.9344 1.85 2.772 3.7 4.612 5.544 6.459 7.369 8.284 9.203 10.11 11.01 11.91 12.83 13.69
M14R 0.8781 1.753 2.628 3.5 4.381 5.256 6.103 6.934 7.906 8.722 9.631 10.4 11.43 12.21 13.13

© ASCE 04018066-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Appendix II (Continued.)
Cable f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f 10 f11 f12 f 13 f 14 f 15
M15R 0.8563 1.7 2.55 3.391 4.237 5.091 5.925 6.766 7.631 8.453 9.303 10.13 10.99 11.8 12.66
M30R 0.8531 1.706 2.556 3.406 4.253 5.103 5.959 6.794 7.606 8.466 9.344 10.13 10.94 11.84 12.66
M29R 0.9563 1.906 2.863 3.806 4.756 5.706 6.659 7.588 8.519 9.466 10.43 11.35 12.25 — —
M28R 0.9781 1.953 2.925 3.897 4.869 5.844 6.809 7.741 8.672 9.703 10.66 11.59 — — —
M27R 1.022 2.034 3.05 4.056 5.081 6.094 7.091 8.088 9.072 10.07 11.01 11.89 12.81 — —
M26R 1.082 2.141 3.209 4.275 5.338 6.388 7.494 8.606 9.541 10.5 11.58 12.46 13.62 — —
M25R 1.142 2.234 3.35 4.447 5.563 6.659 7.759 8.778 9.784 10.93 12 13.02 — — —
M24R 1.203 2.391 3.569 4.75 5.953 — — — — — — — — — —
M23R 1.297 2.575 3.834 5.134 6.378 7.616 8.875 10.04 — — — — — — —
M22R 1.434 2.863 4.281 5.691 7.081 8.506 — — — — — — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M21R 1.597 3.184 4.769 6.322 7.906 9.409 10.89 12.33 — — — — — — —

M20R 1.681 3.347 5 6.65 8.291 9.856 11.41 12.94 — — — — — — —
M19R 2.1 4.169 5.485 8.444 10.54 12.58 14.57 16.6 — — — — — — —
M18R 2.031 4.025 5.972 7.938 — — — — — — — — — — —
M17R 2.713 5.369 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
M16R 2.641 5.022 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
B16R 2.463 4.531 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
B17R 2.509 4.881 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
B18R 2.403 4.775 6.941 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B19R 2.063 4.075 6.091 8.022 — — — — — — — — — — —
B20R 1.878 3.728 5.553 7.356 9.047 — — — — — — — — — —
B21R 1.641 3.278 4.869 6.497 8.044 9.669 — — — — — — — — —
B22R 1.503 2.997 4.478 5.975 7.428 8.875 — — — — — — — — —
B23R 1.45 2.897 4.316 5.741 7.122 8.447 9.984 — — — — — — — —
B24R 1.431 2.85 4.222 5.609 7.084 8.428 — — — — — — — — —
B25R 1.31 2.438 3.641 4.85 6.066 — — — — — — — — — —
B26R 1.19 2.325 3.453 4.641 5.791 6.897 8.072 9.147 — — — — — — —
B27R 1.084 2.156 3.234 4.309 5.359 6.428 7.478 8.466 — — — — — — —
B28R 1.038 2.069 3.106 4.144 5.163 6.159 7.206 8.238 9.259 — — — — — —
B29R 0.9438 1.884 2.822 3.759 4.7 5.634 6.566 7.503 8.438 9.363 10.25 11.15 11.92 — —
B30R 0.9313 1.856 2.781 3.706 4.628 5.55 6.463 7.369 8.222 9.234 10.13 11.06 11.9 12.84 —

Appendix III. Measured Natural Frequencies of Stay Cables of New Ironton-Russell Bridge in Hz

Cable f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f 10 f 11 f12 f13 f 14 f 15

B15L 0.9031 1.806 2.706 3.609 4.509 5.4 6.294 7.197 8.091 8.975 9.866 10.81 11.66 12.53 13.3
B14L 0.9469 1.884 2.822 3.753 4.697 5.631 6.578 7.506 8.412 9.331 10.23 11.17 12.15 13.01 13.92
B13L 1.025 2.041 3.056 4.066 5.056 6.1 7.094 8.066 9.103 10.08 11.04 12.07 13.01 13.92 14.81
B12L 1.072 2.138 3.188 4.259 5.338 6.359 7.419 8.412 9.519 10.65 11.56 12.68 — — —
B11L 1.191 2.378 3.569 4.753 5.897 7.109 8.266 9.422 10.54 11.58 — — — — —
B10L 1.209 2.409 3.613 4.816 5.981 — — — — — — — — — —
B9L 1.366 2.728 4.081 5.45 6.794 8.144 9.459 10.74 12.09 — — — — — —
B8L 1.363 2.709 4.05 5.369 6.731 8.047 9.313 10.56 — — — — — — —
B7L 1.444 2.888 4.322 5.747 7.159 8.641 10.02 11.43 12.81 — — — — — —
B6L 1.634 3.256 4.863 6.488 8.069 9.588 11.04 12.48 — — — — — — —
B5L 1.906 3.794 5.678 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B4L 2.072 4.128 6.172 8.184 10 — — — — — — — — — —
B3L 2.284 4.506 6.688 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B2L 2.422 4.806 7.019 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B1L 2.534 4.922 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
M1L 2.494 4.684 7.134 9.572 — — — — — — — — — — —
M2L 2.734 5.378 7.875 — — — — — — — — — — — —
M3L 2.103 4.184 6.219 8.162 10.12 12.37 14.45 — — — — — — — —
M4L 1.919 3.816 5.697 7.563 9.397 11.18 12.89 — — — — — — — —
M5L 1.675 3.331 4.981 6.613 8.222 9.819 11.44 — — — — — — — —
M6L 1.575 3.141 4.703 6.244 7.756 9.294 10.78 12.18 — — — — — — —
M7L 1.522 3.038 4.544 6.031 7.516 9.003 10.46 11.84 — — — — — — —
M8L 1.313 2.613 3.888 5.197 6.219 7.697 — — — — — — — — —
M9L 1.256 2.506 3.741 4.978 6.213 7.484 8.666 — — — — — — — —
M10L 1.16 2.25 3.375 4.484 5.563 6.719 7.806 — — — — — — — —
M11L 1.07 2.294 3.434 4.569 5.709 6.85 7.978 9.094 10.23 11.32 12.42 13.51 14.71 15.71 16.8
M12L 0.99 1.956 2.931 3.906 4.884 5.863 6.816 7.775 8.744 9.647 10.61 — — — —
M13L 0.9 1.866 2.794 3.722 4.653 5.563 6.509 7.431 8.363 9.219 10.16 11.04 — — —
M14L 0.8906 1.769 2.656 3.538 4.428 5.313 6.178 7.059 7.969 8.8 9.647 10.63 — — —
M15L 0.8594 1.713 2.566 3.413 4.263 5.131 5.969 6.825 7.694 8.547 — — — — —

© ASCE 04018066-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Appendix III (Continued.)
Cable f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f 10 f 11 f12 f13 f 14 f 15
M30L 0.8438 1.691 2.534 3.381 4.222 5.063 5.906 6.75 7.575 8.406 9.278 10.1 — — —
M29L 0.9563 1.903 2.853 3.803 4.756 5.7 6.644 7.594 8.556 9.478 10.41 11.35 12.25 13.19 14.06
M28L 0.99 1.928 2.891 3.847 4.634 5.775 6.744 7.694 8.638 9.594 10.53 11.56 12.46 13.36 14.23
M27L 1.028 2.041 3.066 4.088 5.075 6.134 7.125 — — — — — — — —
M26L 1.075 2.141 3.209 4.284 5.338 6.397 7.441 8.503 9.516 10.61 11.56 12.66 13.72 14.71 15.71
M25L 1.116 2.219 3.331 4.428 5.541 6.603 7.703 8.641 9.925 — — — — — —
M24L 1.203 2.403 3.581 4.784 5.975 7.144 8.297 9.472 — — — — — — —
M23L 1.297 2.584 3.872 5.159 6.431 7.669 8.95 — — — — — — — —
M22L 1.45 2.909 4.356 5.784 7.222 8.609 — — — — — — — — —
M21L 1.603 3.191 4.772 6.344 7.856 9.359 10.95 — — — — — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M20L 1.697 3.378 5.041 6.731 8.306 9.909 11.39 13.44 15.03 — — — — — —
M19L 2.087 4.166 6.222 8.159 10.17 — — — — — — — — — —
M18L 2.05 4.053 6.072 7.984 — — — — — — — — — — —
M17L 2.628 5.197 7.784 10.22 — — — — — — — — — — —
M16L 2.597 5.091 7.753 10.24 — — — — — — — — — — —
B16L 2.294 4.475 6.959 9.156 — — — — — — — — — — —
B17L 2.463 4.897 6.969 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B18L 2.425 4.769 7.006 — — — — — — — — — — — —
B19L 2.072 4.109 6.103 8.113 — — — — — — — — — — —
B20l 1.875 3.741 5.575 7.425 9.022 — — — — — — — — — —
B21L 1.65 3.3 4.9 6.488 8.109 9.594 — — — — — — — — —
B22L 1.497 2.991 4.459 5.934 7.372 8.653 — — — — — — — — —
B23L 1.438 2.869 4.294 5.709 7.138 8.522 9.859 11.07 — — — — — — —
B24L 1.441 2.869 4.297 5.725 7.138 8.525 — — — — — — — — —
B25L 1.222 2.438 3.647 4.859 6.034 7.272 8.425 9.537 10.77 11.8 — — — — —
B26L 1.156 2.3 3.444 4.578 5.713 6.859 7.909 9.131 10.16 — — — — — —
B27L 1.056 2.103 3.15 4.194 5.234 6.263 7.288 8.353 9.356 10.33 11.34 12.33 13.31 14.62 —
B28L 1.034 2.069 3.103 4.131 5.134 6.325 7.234 8.272 9.272 10.16 11.24 — — — —
B29L 0.95 1.888 2.825 3.766 4.709 5.65 6.581 7.516 8.447 9.394 10.28 11.23 12.12 13.03 —
B30L 0.9313 1.85 2.766 3.684 4.603 5.509 6.431 7.356 8.213 9.159 10.06 10.9 — — —

Appendix IV. Estimated and Lift-Off Cable Tensions

Cable Estimated tension (kN) Lift-off tension (kN) Difference (%) Lift-off standard deviation (kN)
B15R 2,670.5 2,574.7 3.7 26.8
B14R 2,376.7 2,249.5 5.6 23.8
B13R 2,066.6 1,949.6 6 31.2
B12R 1,965.2 1,987.4 −1.1 26.3
B11R 1,951.5 2,078.2 −6.1 81.2
B10R 1,894.6 1,925.3 −1.6 60.6
B9R 1,849.8 1,915.6 −3.4 47.9
B8R 1,489.2 1,480 0.6 71.9
B7R 1,276.7 1,318.5 −3.2 37
B6R 1,266 1,255.3 0.8 37
B5R 1,471.3 1,447.7 1.6 26.4
B4R 1,399 1,346.7 3.9 44.2
B3R 1,222.3 1,257.6 −2.8 29.7
B2R 997.2 1,053.3 −5.3 22.2
B1R 819.3 898.2 −8.8 31.5
M1R 797.1 873.6 −8.7 37.3
M2R 1,293.6 1,278.9 1.1 18.4
M3R 1,094.5 1,069.6 2.3 40.6
M4R 1,222.2 1,169.6 4.5 14.6
M5R 1,182.5 1,196.3 −1.1 52.2
M6R 1,430.6 1,409.8 1.5 22.4
M7R 1,731.9 1,662.8 4.1 101.4
M8R 1,693.3 1,679.9 0.8 61.8
M9R 1,736.1 1,705.9 1.8 24.5
M10R 1800.9 1,789.9 0.6 28.9
M11R 2,236.9 2,164.3 3.3 40.3
M12R 1,985.8 1,935.5 2.6 41.6
M13R 2,124.3 2,263.2 −6.1 71.2
M14R 2,407 2,389 0.7 73.8
M15R 2,562.7 2,499.2 2.5 43.4

© ASCE 04018066-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Appendix IV (Continued.)
Cable Estimated tension (kN) Lift-off tension (kN) Difference (%) Lift-off standard deviation (kN)
M30R 2,567.4 2,484.1 3.3 30.9
M29R 2,847.7 2,768.3 2.9 48.8
M28R 2,367 2,259.4 4.8 31.1
M27R 2,123.8 2,050 3.6 31
M26R 1,962.6 1,906.6 2.9 50
M25R 1,742.4 1,698.8 2.6 27.4
M24R 1,675.5 1,585.3 5.7 40.4
M23R 1,591.9 1,543.1 3.2 23.6
M22R 1,516.1 1,461.6 3.7 14.4
M21R 1,428.8 1,382.8 3.3 30.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

M20R 1,208.1 1,174 2.9 16.3

M19R 1,367.9 1,347.4 1.5 14
M18R 1,045.6 1,010.1 3.5 26.1
M17R 1,311.3 1,242.9 5.5 23.3
M16R 842.9 844.5 −0.2 25.7
B16R 701.2 735.3 −4.6 7.9
B17R 1,101.6 1,105.8 −0.4 23.5
B18R 1,374.4 1,358.4 1.2 18.7
B19R 1,365.1 1,356.9 0.6 20
B20R 1,406.7 1,415.1 −0.6 10.9
B21R 1,351.7 1,339.9 0.9 33.1
B22R 1,393.2 1,367.5 1.9 19.3
B23R 1,644.2 1,657.4 −0.8 23.2
B24R 2,010.4 1,983.6 1.3 53.4
B25R 1,924.7 1,887.9 1.9 62.1
B26R 2,010.9 2,022.3 −0.6 64.8
B27R 1,995.9 1,996.7 0 68
B28R 2,181.6 2,018.1 8.1 24.8
B29R 2,349.4 2,335.8 0.6 126.8
B30R 2,723.9 2,720.5 0.1 109.7
B15L 2,587.8 2,480.9 4.3 71.5
B14L 2,356.9 2,280.3 3.3 61
B13L 2,060.4 1,958.5 5.2 23.8
B12L 1,956.3 1,967.3 −0.6 44.7
B11L 2,086.5 2,141.2 −2.5 64.7
B10L 1,876.3 1,877 0 79.2
B9L 1,844.5 1,825.1 1.1 13.7
B8L 1,442 1,448.3 −0.4 56.4
B7L 1,291.2 1,256.3 2.8 54.9
B6L 1,303.6 1,352.2 −3.6 60.2
B5L 1,507.6 1,468.8 2.6 27.7
B4L 1,378.2 1,332.1 3.5 53.9
B3L 1,258 1,249.9 0.6 30.9
B2L 1,022.9 1,114.5 −8.2 19.4
B1L 810.1 853.4 −5.1 15.9
M1L 742.8 785.4 −5.4 40.6
M2L 1,274.2 1,287.3 −1 54.7
M3L 1,079 1,127.4 −4.3 36.7
M4L 1,164.7 1,148.5 1.4 47.7
M5L 1,214.9 1,182.2 2.8 41.3
M6L 1,392.9 1,371.2 1.6 28.5
M7L 1,680 1,640.8 2.4 16.9
M8L 1,618 1,641.9 −1.4 78.7
M9L 1,828.9 1,768.1 3.4 51.2
M10L 1,817.5 1,759 3.3 20
M11L 2,250.8 2,232.6 0.8 30
M12L 1,995.2 1,920 3.9 49.4
M13L 2,158.2 2,098.7 2.8 93.2
M14L 2,474.1 2,290.3 8 55.9
M15L 2,590.3 2,507.8 3.3 51.8
M30L 2,547.1 2,420.1 5.2 29.2
M29L 2,832.9 2,695.6 5.1 52
M28L 2,308.2 2,204.8 4.7 43.4
M27L 2,204.4 2,075.6 6.2 76.6
M26L 1,965.9 1,866 5.3 18.8
M25L 1,754.1 1,664.1 5.4 35.7

© ASCE 04018066-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Appendix IV (Continued.)
Cable Estimated tension (kN) Lift-off tension (kN) Difference (%) Lift-off standard deviation (kN)
M24L 1,672.2 1,567.5 6.7 44.1
M23L 1,630.2 1,578.3 3.3 47.2
M22L 1,564.1 1,506.4 3.8 24.6
M21L 1,445.1 1,401.8 3.1 36.8
M20L 1,218.7 1,247.8 −2.3 42.4
M19L 1,401.8 1,363.4 2.8 9.1
M18L 1,065.4 990.8 7.5 36.7
M17L 1,202.4 1,188 1.2 51.6
M16L 864.3 875.6 −1.3 20.8
B16L 658.4 685.4 −3.9 11.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B17L 1,027.4 1,058.4 −2.9 11.3

B18L 1,391.6 1,385.9 0.4 36.9
B19l 1,386.7 1,348.1 2.9 23.8
B20L 1,413.5 1,382.1 2.3 24.6
B21L 1,351.4 1,343 0.6 30.8
B22l 1,355.3 1,334.5 1.6 23.4
B23l 1,608.5 1,653.8 −2.7 43.8
B24l 2,060.6 1,988.9 3.6 45.7
B25L 1,865.3 1,895.9 −1.6 85.4
B26L 1,961.8 1,973.6 −0.6 36.7
B27L 1,877.9 1,869.5 0.4 27.8
B28L 2,173.9 1,985.3 9.5 38.2
B29L 2,373.1 2,379.4 −0.3 90.9
B30L 2,696 2,697.4 0 75.9

Acknowledgments stayed bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 18 (8): 748–757. https://doi.org/10

This project was sponsored and supported by the Ohio Department
of Transportation (ODOT). The authors gratefully acknowledge
their expertise, advice, and financial support. The authors also
gratefully thank VSL International Ltd. for their cooperation and
providing lift-off test results.
References
ASTM. 2017. Standard specification for low-relaxation, seven-wire steel
strand for prestressed concrete. ASTM A416. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
Bao, Y., Z. Shi, J. L. Beck, H. Li, and T. Y. Hou. 2017. “Identification of
time-varying cable tension forces based on adaptive sparse time-
frequency analysis of cable vibrations.” Struct. Control Health Monit.
24 (3): e1889. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1889.
Bouaanani, N. 2006. “Numerical investigation of the modal sensitivity
of suspended cables with localized damage.” J. Sound Vib. 292 (3):
1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2005.09.013.
Casas, J. R. 1994. “A combined method for measuring cable forces: The
cable-stayed Alamillo bridge, Spain.” Struct. Eng. Int. 4 (4): 235–240.
https://doi.org/10.2749/101686694780601700.
Ceballos, M. A., and C. A. Prato. 2008. “Determination of the axial force
on stay cables accounting for their bending stiffness and rotational end
restraints by free vibration tests.” J. Sound Vib. 317 (1): 127–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2008.02.048.
Chen, C.-C., W.-H. Wu, C.-Y. Liu, and G. Lai. 2017. “Diagnosis of instant
and long-term damages in cable-stayed bridges based on the variation of
cable forces.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (5): 565–579. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15732479.2017.1375962.
Cho, S., J. P. Lynch, J.-J. Lee, and C.-B. Yun. 2010. “Development of an
automated wireless tension force estimation system for cable-stayed
bridges.” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 21 (3): 361–376. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1045389X09350719.
Cho, S., J. Yim, S. W. Shin, H.-J. Jung, C.-B. Yun, and M. L. Wang. 2012.
“Comparative field study of cable tension measurement for a cable-
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000421.
Cunha, A., E. Caetano, and R. Delgado. 2001. “Dynamic tests on large
cable-stayed bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 6 (1): 54–62. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:1(54).
Fang, Z., and J.-Q. Wang. 2010. “Practical formula for cable tension esti-
mation by vibration method.” J. Bridge Eng. 17 (1): 161–164. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000200.
Feng, D., T. Scarangello, M. Q. Feng, and Q. Ye. 2017. “Cable tension
force estimate using novel noncontact vision-based sensor.” Measure-
ment 99 (Mar): 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.12
.020.
Fujiwara, Y., and T. Sakai. 2016. “A study of a lift-off test method for
ground anchors.” J. JSCE 4 (1): 106–117. https://doi.org/10.2208
/journalofjsce.4.1_106.
Geier, R., G. De Roeck, and R. Flesch. 2006. “Accurate cable force deter-
mination using ambient vibration measurements.” Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 2 (1): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470500253123.
Gentile, C. 2010. “Deflection measurement on vibrating stay cables by
non-contact microwave interferometer.” NDT&E Int. 43 (3): 231–240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.11.007.
Gimsing, N. J. 1997. Cable supported bridges, concept & design. 2nd ed.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf, S. E., M. Norouzi, R. J. Allemang, V. J.
Hunt, and A. Helmicki. 2017a. “Stay cable tension estimation of cable-
stayed bridges using genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimiza-
tion.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (10): 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001130.
Haji Agha Mohammad Zarbaf, S. E., M. Norouzi, R. J. Allemang, V. J.
Hunt, A. Helmicki, and D. K. Nims. 2017b. “Stay force estimation in
cable-stayed bridges using stochastic subspace identification methods.”
J. Bridge Eng. 22 (9): 04017055. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0001091.
Huang, Y.-H., J.-Y. Fu, Q. Gan, R.-H. Wang, Y.-L. Pi, and A.-R. Liu. 2017.
“New method for identifying internal forces of hangers based on form-
finding theory of suspension cable.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (9): 04017055.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001147.
Irvine, H. M. 1981. Cable Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

© ASCE 04018066-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066

 Irvine, H. M., and T. K. Caughey. 1974. “The linear theory of free vibrations
of a suspended cable.” Proc. R. Soc. London A. 341 (1626): 299–315.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1974.0189.
Johnson, E. A., R. E. Christenson, and B. F. Spencer Jr. 2003. “Semiactive
damping of cables with sag.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.
18 (2): 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8667.00305.
Kim, S.-W., B.-G. Jeon, J.-H. Cheung, S.-D. Kim, and J.-B. Park. 2017.
“Stay cable tension estimation using a vision-based monitoring system
under various weather conditions.” J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit.: 7 (3):
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-017-0226-7.
Kim, S.-W., B.-G. Jeon, N.-S. Kim, and J.-C. Park. 2013. “Vision-based
monitoring system for evaluating cable tensile forces on a cable-stayed
bridge.” Struct. Health Monit. 12 (5–6): 440–456. https://doi.org/10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 04/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1177/1475921713500513.
Kim, S.-W., and N.-S. Kim. 2011. “Multi-point displacement response
measurement of civil infrastructures using digital image processing.”
Procedia Eng. 14: 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07
.023.
Lardies, J. 2010. “Modal parameter identification based on ARMAV and
state–space approaches.” Arch. Appl. Mech. 80 (4): 335–352.
Lardies, J., and T. Minh-Ngi. 2011. “Modal parameter identification of
stay cables from output-only measurements.” Mech. Syst. Sig. Process.
25 (1): 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.05.020.
Mazurek, D. F. 2016. “Vibration-based estimation of tension stress in steel
eyebars.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (12): 04016124. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001613.
Mehrabi, A. B., and H. Tabatabai. 1998. “Unified finite difference formu-
lation for free vibration of cables.” J. Struct. Eng. 124 (11): 1313–1322.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:11(1313).
Nazarian, E., F. Ansari, and H. Azari. 2016a. “Recursive optimization
method for monitoring of tension loss in cables of cable-stayed
bridges.” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 27 (15): 2091–2101. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1045389X15620043.
Nazarian, E., F. Ansari, X. Zhang, and T. Taylor. 2016b. “Detection of ten-
sion loss in cables of cable-stayed bridges by distributed monitoring of
bridge deck strains.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (6): 04016018. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001463.
Norouzi, M., S. E. H. A. M. Zarbaf, A. Dalvi, V. Hunt, and A. Helmicki.
2016. A study of thermal response of concrete towers employing linear
regression. In Vol. 9804 of Proc., Nondestructive Characterization and
Monitoring of Advanced Materials, Aerospace, and Civil Infrastructure
2016 98040G. Bellingham, WA: SPIE (The International Society for
Optics and Photonics).
Pacheco, B. M., Y. Fujino, and A. Sulekh. 1993. “Estimation curve for
modal damping in stay cables with viscous damper.” J. Struct. Eng.
119 (6): 1961–1979. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)
119:6(1961).
Pacitti, A., M. Peigney, F. Bourquin, and W. Lacarbonara. 2017. “Exper-
imental data based cable tension identification via nonlinear static
© ASCE 04018066-17
J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(6): 04018066
inverse problem.” Procedia Eng. 199: 453–458. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.013.
Ren, W.-X., G. Chen, and W.-H. Hu. 2005. “Empirical formulas to estimate
cable tension by cable fundamental frequency.” Struct. Eng. Mech.
20 (3): 363–380. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2005.20.3.363.
Ricciardi, G., and F. Saitta. 2008. “A continuous vibration analysis
model for cables with sag and bending stiffness.” Eng. Struct. 30 (5):
1459–1472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.08.008.
Scarella, A., G. Salamone, S. K. Babanajad, A. De Stefano, and F. Ansari.
2016. “Dynamic Brillouin scattering-based condition assessment of
cables in cable-stayed bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 22 (3): 04016130.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001010.
Sim, S.-H., J. Li, H. Jo, J.-W. Park, S. Cho, B. F. Spencer Jr., and H.-J. Jung.
2013. “A wireless smart sensor network for automated monitoring of
cable tension.” Smart Mater. Struct. 23 (2): 025006. https://doi.org/10
.1088/0964-1726/23/2/025006.
Ta, M.-N., J. Lardies, and B. Marc. 2006. “Natural frequencies and modal
damping ratios identification of civil structures from ambient vibration
data.” Shock Vibr. 13 (4, 5): 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1155/2006
/625927.
Wu, W.-H., C.-C. Chen, and J.-A. Liau. 2012. “A multiple random decre-
ment method for modal parameter identification of stay cables based on
ambient vibration signals.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (6): 969–982. https://
doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.6.969.
Xu, Y., and Z. Yu. 1998. “Vibration of inclined sag cables with oil dampers
in cable-stayed bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 3 (4): 194–203.https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(1998)3:4(194).
Yang, Y., S. Li, S. Nagarajaiah, H. Li, and P. Zhou. 2015. “Real-
time output-only identification of time-varying cable tension from
accelerations via complexity pursuit.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (1):
04015083. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001337.
Yang, Y., X. Wang, and Z. Wu. 2014. “Experimental study of vibration
characteristics of FRP cables for long-span cable-stayed bridges.”
J. Bridge Eng. 20 (4): 04014074. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0000656.
Yu, Y., C. Zhang, X. Zhu, W. H. Kang, X. Mao, and B. Uy. 2014. “Design
and experimental investigations of a vibration based wireless measure-
ment system for bridge cable tension monitoring.” Adv. Struct. Eng.
17 (11): 1657–1668. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.17.11.1657.
Zhang, F., M. Norouzi, V. J. Hunt, and A. Helmicki. 2015. “Structural
health monitoring system for Ironton–Russell Bridge, Ohio and
Kentucky. Phase 1: Substructure construction.” J. Transp. Res. Board,
2504: 159–167. https://doi.org/10.3141/2504-18.
Zhao, Y., Z. Wang, X. Zhang, and L. Chen. 2017. “Effects of temperature
variation on vibration of a cable-stayed beam.” Int. J. Struct. Stability
Dyn. 17 (10): 1750123. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455417501231.
Zui, H., T. Shinke, and Y. Namita. 1996. “Practical formulas for estimation
of cable tension by vibration method.” J. Struct. Eng. 122 (6): 651–656.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:6(651).
J. Struct. Eng.