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

net/publication/278049372

Simplified method for predicting the deflections of cable-stayed suspension

bridges considering live loads

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · July 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-014-1036-7

CITATIONS READS

0 46

2 authors:

Jin Cheng Yin Li

Tongji University Concordia University Montreal
56 PUBLICATIONS   783 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yin Li on 15 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2015) 19(5):1413-1419 Structural Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-1036-7 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Simplified Method for Predicting the Deflections of Cable-stayed

Suspension Bridges Considering Live Loads
Jin Cheng* and Ying Li**
Received January 24, 2014/Revised June 24, 2014/Accepted June 28, 2014/Published Online December 1, 2014

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

A simplified method for predicting the deflections of cable-stayed suspension bridges considering live loads is presented. In the
proposed method the governing equation of the cable-stayed suspension bridge, based on potential energy method, is derived. A
Fourier series is used to describe the defections of the bridge deck. It has been shown from the numerical investigation of two
different cable-stayed suspension bridges that the iteration procedure has a very high convergence rate. Only a few iterations are
needed and a small number of series terms are sufficient for achieving the solutions of the problems. The predictions of the proposed
method show good agreement with finite element results.
Keywords: cable-stayed suspension bridge, deflection prediction, simplified method, static analysis, finite element method
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
The cable-stayed suspension bridge is a new type of cable
supported bridge consisting of a cable-stayed bridge and a
suspension bridge. In recent years, it has found some applications
in sea-crossing bridges because it has the advantages of cost
reduction, reasonable mechanical behaviors, good aerostatic
stability and strong foundation adaptability (Bruno et al., 2009;
Gimsing and Georgakis, 2012). Serviceability performance of
cable-stayed suspension bridges is an important consideration
in the design of cable-stayed suspension bridges. To ensure the
serviceability requirement, it is necessary to accurately predict
the deflections of cable-stayed suspension bridges under live
loads. This problem can be solved by the Finite Element
Method (FEM). However, the use of FEM is usually computationally
too intensive with the increase in structural size, and for long-
span cable-stayed suspension bridges, input preparation is
time-consuming. Therefore, it is desirable to develop a
simpler and consistent theoretical approach for predicting the
deflections of cable-stayed suspension bridges under live
loads.
To reduce the computation effect, researchers have proposed
simplified methods for response prediction of cable supported
bridges under live loads. The early theories developed for response
prediction of suspension bridges are the elastic theory and the
deflection theory (Thai and Choi, 2013). The elastic theory did
not account for the stiffening effect of the main cable under
tension, and thus gave higher moments in the stiffening girder.
The deflection theory accounted for the second-order effects of
cable stiffness and correctly reduced the moment carried by the
stiffening girder (Jung et al., 2013; Kim and Thai, 2011). In 1986
Hegab (1986) proposed a potential energy method for evaluating
the static response of cable-stayed bridges. By representing
girder deflection in a Fourier series and modeling the stay cables
as a series of elastic supports, total potential energy is obtained.
The principle of minimum potential energy is used to develop an
iterative procedure for determining the unknown cable tension
under specified girder loading. The method is shown to be
rapidly convergent for relatively stiff towers. Aboul-ella (1988)
extended the potential energy method to account for flexibility of
the supporting towers. Compared to other types of cable
supported bridges, the cable-stayed suspension bridges are
relatively new and have been introduced only since the 2002
(Suzuki, 2005). Although several investigators (Zhang et al.,
2010; Suzuki, 2005) have studied the mechanical behavior of
cable-stayed suspension bridges, very few (Ye, 2010) have
tackled the problem of using simplified method for predicting
the deflections of cable-stayed suspension bridges under live
loads.
The objective of this study is to develop a simplified analysis
method for predicting the deflections of cable-stayed suspension
bridges. To this end, the governing equation of the cable-stayed
suspension bridge, based on potential energy method, is derived.
Then, a Fourier series is used to described the defections of the

*Professor, State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University 200092, Shanghai, China (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
chengjin@tsinghua.org.cn)
**MSc Student, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China (E-mail: yunlanf@sina.com)

− 1413 −
 Jin Cheng and Ying Li

Fig. 1. Cable-stayed Suspension Bridge

bridge deck. An iteration procedure which has a high convergence

Fig. 2. Equivalent Bridge Structure: (a) Equivalent Deck, (b) Equiv-
rate is given for solving the above governing equation. The
alent Tower and Suspension Cable
simplified method is validated with the results of finite-element
analysis conducted on two different cable-stayed suspension
bridges.
3.1 Analysis of the Bridge Deck
2. Assumptions
3.1.1 Governing Equation
Consider the typical cable-stayed suspension bridge shown in The potential energy of the bridge deck shown in Fig. 1 can be
Fig. 1, which is subjected to static concentrated loads F1, F2, …, expressed as:
Fi and distributed load q. The bridge has two cable planes and N3 N1
L K L y y y
two pylons, and the deck does not connect with the pylons. The U = ∫ ∫ M dKdx – ∫ ∫ q dydx – ∑ ∫ i F dyi + ∑ ∫ ci Wi dyci
0 0 0 0 0 0
following assumptions are made in the analysis: i=1 i=1
N2
1) Hanger is densely distributed along the bridge length direc- yhi L y″ L y
+ ∑ ∫ Pi dyhi= E G IG ∫ ∫ y″ dy″ dx – ∫ ∫ q dy dx (1)
tion; 0
i=1
0 0 0 0

2)The stretching of hangers under live loads is ignored; N3 N1 N2

3) Configuration of suspension cable on completion is qua-
dratic parabola; stress of stiffened girder due to dead load is
ignored.
4) Suspension cable, stay cable and the hanger are assumed to
be without any bending stiffness;
5) Stiffened girder is assumed to be constant cross section.
6) Stiffness of pylons is ignored and all cables are fixed to
the pylons. Following assumptions are made in the anal-
ysis:
3. Proposed Simplified Analysis Method
The proposed method essentially consists of three steps:
analysis of the bridge deck, the stay cables and the suspension
cables. In the first step, all the hangers and stay cables are
removed and replaced by equivalent forces applied at the bridge
deck as shown in Fig. 2. By representing girder deflection in a
Fourier series and applying the equivalent forces at the bridge
deck, total potential energy of the bridge deck is obtained. The
principle of minimum potential energy is used to develop an
iterative procedure for determining the unknown stay cable
tension under specified girder loading in the second step of the
analysis of the stay cables. In the third step, horizontal
component of suspension cable tension owing to dead and live
loads is determined. The details of the three steps are described
below.
y y y
– ∑ ∫ i F dyi + ∑ ∫ ci Wi dyci + ∑ ∫ hi P idyhi
0 0 0
i=1 i=1 i=1
M = EG IG y″ (2)
2 2
K = y″ = d y ⁄ dx (3)
W i = Ti sinθ i (4)
where, M is bending moment in the girder; K is curvature of the
girder; Wi is vertical component of the stay cable force Ti in cable
i; EGIG is bending stiffness of the bridge deck; N1 is total
number of stay cables; N2 is total number of hangers; N3 is
total number of concentrated load;θi is slope of stay cable i to
horizontal; q is distributed load; yi is deck deflection at the
location where stay cable i is connected to the deck; yhi is
deck deflection at the location where hanger i is connected to
the deck; yci is deck deflection at the location where stay cable
i is connected to the deck; Fi is concentrated load; L is span
length (between the two end abutments); Lci is length of stay
cable i.
3.1.2 Deflections of Bridge Deck
The deck deflection y at any point distance x which is the
distance from the left end abutment as shown in Fig. 1 may be
expressed in terms of a series function that satisfies all the
boundary conditions of the bridge deck:

− 1414 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Simplified Method for Predicting the Deflections of Cable-stayed Suspension Bridges Considering Live Loads

where, yA, yB are horizontal distance from the pier point A and B
to the left support, respectively.
Similarly, two Fourier coefficients bjA, bjB for the deflection
curve due to unit girder reaction at the pier point A and B in Figs.
3(b) and 3(c) may thus be written as:
jπx
sin ---------A-
L
bjA = --------------------------------- (10)
jπ 4 L
EG IG ⋅ ⎛ -----⎞ ⋅ ---
⎝ L⎠ 2

jπx
sin ---------B-
L
bjB = --------------------------------- (11)
⎛ jπ⎞ 4 L
EG IG ⋅ ----- ⋅ ---
⎝ L⎠ 2

The girder deflection yAA, yBA, yAB, yBB at the pier point A and B
due to unit girder reaction at the pier position, may thus be
written as:
Fig. 3. System of the Bridge Deck: (a) Deflection Curve of the
Bridge Deck, (b) Deflection Curve due to Unit Girder Reac- ∞
jπxA
tion at Pier Support A, (c) Deflection Curve due to Unit yAA = ∑ bjAsin ---------
L
- (12)
Girder Reaction at Pier Support B j=1

∞
jπxB
∞ yBA = ∑ bjA sin ---------
L
- (13)
y= ∑ ai ⋅ f i ( x ) j=1

i=1
∞
jπxA
iπx
in which, fi ( x ) = sin -------- (5)
yAB = ∑ bjBsin ---------
L
- (14)
L j=1

∞
where, ai = Unknown coefficients to be determined. jπxB
According to the principle of the minimum total potential
yBB = ∑ bjB sin ---------
L
- (15)
j=1
states, the total potential energy must be the minimum for the
For the equilibrium requirement, the following conditions should
equilibrium requirement. Then the following conditions should
be satisfied:
be satisfied:
RA ⋅ yAA + RB ⋅ yBA + yA = 0 (16)
∂U
------- = 0 ( i = 1, 2, 3, … ) (6)
∂ai
RA ⋅ yAB + RB ⋅ yBB + yB = 0 (17)
For a uniform live load q extending from x0 to xe and concentrated
Thus, the girder reaction RA, RB at the pier support A, B can be
loads Fk at a point distance xk from the left end support (see Fig.
obtained by substitution from Eqs. (12)-(15) into Eqs. (16) and
1), substituting Eqs. (1)-(5) into Eq. (6) gives:
(17).
N
⎛q ⋅ L-⎞ ⋅ cos -----------
mπx0 mπx 3
mπx The final deflection y of the girder becomes:
-------- - – cos ------------e + ∑ Fk sin ------------k
⎝ mπ ⎠ L L L ∞ ∞ ∞
k=1
mπx mπx mπx
N1 N2 y = ∑ am ⋅ sin ---------- + RA ⋅ ∑ bjA ⋅ sin ---------- + RB ⋅ ∑ bjB ⋅ sin ---------- (18)
mπx mπx L L L
– ∑ W i sin -----------i – ∑ P i sin -----------i m=1 j=1 m=1
L i=1 L
am = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i=1
4
(7)
3.2 Analysis of the Stay Cables
EG IG ⋅ ⎛ -------⎞ ⋅ ---
mπ L
⎝ L⎠ 2 The value of the stay cable force Ti can be estimated from the
above final deflection yi as follows:
Using Eq. (7), the girder deflection yA, yB at the pier point A and B
for the system in Fig. 3(a) can thus be written in the form Ec Aci
- ⋅ yi sinθi
Ti = ----------- (19)
∞ Lci
jπx
yA = ∑ aj sin ---------A- (8)
j=1
L where, EcAci is axial stiffness of stay cable i.

∞
jπxB 3.3 Analysis of the Suspension Cable and the Hangers
yB = ∑ aj sin ---------
L
- (9)
The suspension cable geometry (Fig. 4) can be expressed by
j=1

Vol. 19, No. 5 / July 2015 − 1415 −

 Jin Cheng and Ying Li

2
1 L dz 2 dz
≈ --- ∫ ⎛ -----⎞ – ⎛ -------0⎞ dx
s
(24)
2 0 ⎝ dx⎠ ⎝ dx ⎠
The elastic extension of the suspension cable ∆s is also
determined by Krishna (1978):
H − H0
∆s = Ls
Es As (25)
Substituting Eqs. (21)-(24) into Eq. (25) gives:

H + ⎛ ---------
- ------ – H0⎞ H – ---------
3 Es As D0 2 Es As
-D = 0 (26)
⎝ 2Ls H2 ⎠ 2Ls
0

2
⎛ dM-0⎞ dx
Lm
D0 = ∫0 ⎝ ---------
dx ⎠
(27)
Fig. 4. Forces Acting on a Suspension Cable and a Simply Sup-
ported Beam with Equal Load and Span 2 2
L d ( M 0 + M p )⎞
D = ∫ ⎛ --------⎞ dx = ∫ ⎛ --------------------------
L dM m m
dx (28)
0 ⎝ dx ⎠ 0 ⎝ dx ⎠
the following equation (Krishna, 1978): where, Es is the elastic modulus of suspension cable; As is the
cross-sectional area of suspension cable; H0 is horizontal component
M(x )
z ( x ) = ------------ (20) of suspension cable tension due to dead load; M0 is the moment
H
of simply supporting beam with length M0 due to dead load; Mp
where, H is horizontal component of suspension cable tension is the moment of simply supporting beam with length Lm due to
due to dead load and hanger forces; M(x) is the moment of hanger forces under live loads.
simply supporting beam with length Lm due to dead load and The moment of simply supporting beam with length Lm due to
hanger forces; Z(x) is ordinate of suspension cable curve at hanger forces under live loads, Mp (see Fig. 4) can be expressed
location of desired moment; Lm is length of main span. as:
For the suspension cable shown in Fig. 5 (ignoring the horizontal
MP = [P ] ⋅ B (29)
deformation of the suspension cable), ds0 and ds can be expressed
as:
B = [ vij ] (30)
2 2 2
ds0 = dx + dz0 = 1 + ( dz 0 ⁄ dx ) dx (21)
M = M0 + MP (31)
2 2 2 where, P is hanger force applied in the suspension cable; vij is the
ds = dx + dz = 1 + ( dz ⁄ dx ) dx (22)
moment of simply supporting beam at the beam position, i due to
The total elongation ∆s thus becomes: unit hanger force at the beam position j.
Substituting Eqs. (20), (30) and (31) into Eq. (29), P can be
L L 2 2
∆s = ∫ s ds – ds0 = ∫ s ( 1 + ( dz ⁄ dx ) – 1 + ( dz0 ⁄ dx ) )dx (23) expressed by:
0 0
–1
[P ] = ( z ( x ) ⋅ H – M0 ) ⋅ B (32)

3.4 Solution Procedure

The solution procedure can be summarized as follows:
1) Determine the coefficients bjA and bjB using Eqs. (10) and
(11), respectively.
2) Give initial value of the hanger force, P.
3) Give initial value of the stay cable force, T.
4) Calculate the vertical component of the stay cable force, Wi
using Eq. (4).
5) Determine the coefficient am using Eq. (7).
6) Calculate the girder reaction RA, RB at the pier support A, B
from Eqs. (16) and (17), respectively.
7) Determine the final deflection of the bridge deck, y using
Fig. 5. Deformation of Suspension Cable Eq. (18).

− 1416 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Simplified Method for Predicting the Deflections of Cable-stayed Suspension Bridges Considering Live Loads

Fig. 7. Geometry and Support Conditions of a Self-anchored Cable-

stayed Suspension Bridge with a110-m Central Span
Length (example bridge 1) (Unit: m)

Table 1. Material and Sectional Properties of Example Bridge 1

Elastic modulus Area Moment of
Substructures
(MPa) (m2) inertia (m4)
Suspension cable 1.95 × 105 3.45 × 10−2 0.0
Stay cable 1.95 × 105 6.27 × 10−3 0.0
Hanger 1.95 × 105 4.20 × 10−3 0.0
Deck 3.45 × 104 18.03 6.11

Table 2. Comparison of the Prediction of Bridge Deck Deflection

by Different Methods for Example Bridge 1
Vertical Vertical
Different displacement at displacement at Number of
methods midpoint of the midpoint of the input data
central span (m) side span (m)
Proposed method 0.04675 -0.00568 58
Ye’s method 0.06660 -0.00110 -
Finite element
0.05162 -0.00604 412
method

Fig. 6. Flow Chart For Solution Procedure
9) Recalculate the stay cable force using Eq. (19).
10) If the maximum difference of the stay cable forces exceeds
a given small percentage (say 1%), repeat Step 3 to 8 until
the convergence is obtained.
11) Calculate the horizontal component of suspension cable
tension, H and the hanger forces, P from Eqs. (26) and
(32), respectively..
If the maximum difference of the hanger forces exceeds a
given small percentage (say 1%), repeat Step 2 to 10 until the
convergence is obtained.
It has been found that only a few iterations are needed to
achieve convergence and that a small number of Fourier terms
are sufficient. A flow chart for the solution procedure is given in
Fig. 6.
4. Validation of Proposed Simplified Method
To verify the proposed simplified method, a self-anchored
cable-stayed suspension bridge built in China (Example bridge1)
is analyzed. The lengths of the main and side spans are 110 and
45 m, respectively. The ratio of sag to suspended span is 1/5. The
detailed geometry of the bridge is described in Fig. 7. The
material and sectional properties of suspension cables, stay
cables, deck and hangers are given in Table 1. For comparison,
the results by FEM and method proposed by Ye (2010) are
provided. The method of Ye (2010) is a recently reported
simplified analysis method which includes only stiffness of the
bridge deck while in the proposed method the stiffness of stay
cables and suspension cables are also considered.
Comparison of the vertical deflections by different methods is
summarized in Table 2. Fig. 8 shows the convergence of the
proposed method. From Table 2 and Fig. 8, it can be seen that:
(1) vertical displacements at midpoint of the central and side
spans obtained with the proposed method are very close to those
obtained with the finite element method; (2) only 9 terms for
deck deflections are sufficient to achieve convergence of the
solutions; (3) compared with the finite element method, the
proposed method only needs very small amount of input data.
Moreover, the convergence is achieved in only 5 iterations, and

Vol. 19, No. 5 / July 2015 − 1417 −

 Jin Cheng and Ying Li

consequently significant computational time will be saved; and

(4) better accuracy is achieved by the proposed method when
compared with the result of Ye’s method;

5. Deflection Prediction for a Long Span Cable-

stayed Suspension Bridge

A long span self-anchored cable-stayed suspension bridge with

a1400-m central span length (Example bridge 2) is considered
for further validation of the proposed simplified method. The
bridge span arrangements are (452+1400+452) m. The ratio of
sag to suspended span is 1/8.53. The elevation view of the bridge
is shown in Fig. 9. The material and sectional properties of the Fig. 10. Comparison of Deflection of Bridge Deck for a Self-
bridge are listed in Table 3. The bridge is subjected to uniform anchored Cable-stayed Suspension Bridge with a 1400-m
load, where q = 40 kN. Central Span Length (example Bridge 2)
The dead weight of the bridge model is also considered in the
analysis. For more details of the bridge, the reader is referred to
Zhou (2011). the solutions. The total number of input data for the proposed
In the analysis only 10 iterations are needed and 25 terms for method is 124 while the finite element method needs 1374. A
bridge deck deflections are sufficient to achieve convergence of comparison of the prediction of bridge deck deflection by the
proposed method with the result conducted by the finite element
Table 3. Material and Sectional Properties of Example Bridge 2
method is shown in Fig. 10. From this figure, it can be seen that
two sets of results have a good agreement not only in values of
Elastic modulus Area Moment of
Substructures deflections, but also in the shapes of curves of the deflection
(MPa) (m2) inertia (m4)
Suspension cable 1.95 × 105 0.308 0.0 distribution. In general, the maximum difference between the
Stay cable 1.95 × 105 0.010 0.0 proposed method and the finite element method is less than 10%.
Hanger 1.95 × 105 0.00699 0.0 The comparison has shown that the proposed method provides a
Deck 2.10 × 105 1.762 5.0 consistent and satisfactory prediction of deflections of long span
cable-stayed suspension bridges.

6. Conclusions

A simplified method is developed for predicting the deflections

Fig. 8. Convergence of the Proposed Method for Example Bridge1
Fig. 9. Geometry and Support Conditions of a Self-anchored Cable-
stayed Suspension Bridge with a 1400-m Central Span Length
(example bridge 2) (Unit: m)
of cable-stayed suspension bridges under live loads. In the
proposed method the governing equation of the cable-stayed
suspension bridge, based on potential energy method, is derived.
A Fourier series is used to describe the defections of the bridge
deck. The proposed method is validated with finite-element
analysis conducted on two different cable-stayed suspension
bridges. It has been found that a small number of iteration cycles
and Fourier coefficients are sufficient for convergence. The
predictions of the proposed method show good agreement with
the finite element results.
The proposed method is simple, accurate, economical and
reliable. It allows engineers or owners to predict accurately the
deflections of cable-stayed suspension bridges under live loads at
preliminary design stage, without having to resort to extensive
finite element analyses. Finite element analyses, however, can be
reserved for checking the final design to ensure that it meets the
serviceability requirements of cable-stayed suspension bridges.
It should also be noted that the results obtained by the proposed
method are limited to the particular cases presented (i.e., it cannot
be applied to any longitudinal configuration not compliant with
the restriction of low displacements in the tower.). They are only

− 1418 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Simplified Method for Predicting the Deflections of Cable-stayed Suspension Bridges Considering Live Loads
valid in the context of the stated assumptions.
Acknowledgements
This work presented herein has been supported by the Ministry
of Science and Technology of China under grant number
SLDRCE14-B-08 and the National Nature Science Foundation
of China under grant number 51178334. These supports are
gratefully acknowledge.
References
Aboul-ella, F. (1988). “Analysis of cable-stayed bridges supported by
flexible towers.” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 12, pp. 2741-
2754.
Bruno, D., Greco, F., and Lonetti, P. (2009). “A parametric study on the
dynamic behavior of combined cable-stayed and suspension bridges
under moving loads.” International Journal for Computational
Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.
243-258.
Gimsing, N. J. and Georgakis, C. T. (2012). Cable supported bridges:
Concept and design, 3rd Edition, Wiley, New York.
Hegab, H. I. A. (1986). “Energy analysis of cable-stayed bridges.” J.
Vol. 19, No. 5 / July 2015
View publication stats
Struct. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 1182-1195.
Jung, M. R., Min, D. J., and Kim, M. Y. (2013) “Nonlinear analysis
methods based on the unstrained element length for determining
initial shaping of suspension bridges under dead loads.” Computers
& Structures, Vol. 128, No. 11, pp. 272-285.
Kim, S. E. and Thai, H. T. (2011). “Second-order inelastic analysis of
steel suspension bridges.” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design,
Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 351-359.
Krishna, Prem (1978). Cable-suspended roofs, McGraw-Hill, New York
Suthar, Kunal N. (2007). The effect of dead, live and blast loads on a
suspension bridge, MSc Thesis, Maryland, University of Maryland.
Suzuki, T., Kudo, H., Hasegawa, A., and Shioi, Y. (2005). Structural
characteristics of the Nagisa-Bridge (cable-stayed suspension bridge),
30th Conference on Our World in concrete & Structures, CI-Premier
PTE Ltd., Singapore.
Thai, H. T. and Choi, D. H. (2013). “Advanced analysis of multi-span
suspension bridges.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol.
90, No. 11, pp. 29-41.
Ye, Y. (2010). Study on parameter sensitivity and several problems of
self-anchored cable-stayed-suspension bridge, PhD Thesis, Dalian
University of Technology, Dalian
Zhou, Y. G. (2011). Study of structural system of multi-tower cable
supported bridges, PhD Thesis, Tongji University, Shanghai.
− 1419 −