The Response of Structural Cables To Dynamic Axial Loads

ABSTRACT
After catastrophic collapse of some important buildings it became

necessary to account for accidental loadings that mat be induced in a
building structure. Design codes state that cable stayed structures must me
designed to resist progressive collapse explicitly and must be designed for
cable loss and replacement
In cable-stayed structures when a sudden cable loss takes place spikes in
axial forces are observed in the neighbouring cables. The spikes are a result
of the sudden dynamic loads imposed on the structure. To account for these
researchers have come up with equivalent static factors for such accidental
loading conditions on the structures and determine their resilience and
redundancy. The load combinations cases have been defined in the
Eurocode 1. Factors in the range of 1.5 – 2 have been suggested under
different design codes to account for a sudden loss of cable.
Studies have shown they may give very conservative results and are not a
good design practice. Researchers and structural engineers after doing
complex full non-linear dynamic analysis suggested force amplification
factors that could be used and the practicing everyday engineers could
account for them using simple static equations.
Recent studies and advanced software’s that can represent the real
environment conditions more accurately have shown that the spikes in axial
forces may exceed the suggested factors in design codes.
Static linear and non linear analysis were used to verify if the axial forces in
the cables were in accordance with the factors suggested in the codes. It was
seen that the DAF of 2.0 was a good approximate. Also as the demand to
capacity ratios were under 1 the structure was still in an elastic range.
Nodal deflections and axial forces in the cables were compared after
performing static linear and non-linear analysis. Procedure to perform the
dynamic analysis on LS-DYNA has been also described and recommended as
further research
Static equations work for regular structures In case of organic structures
such as the one in this study; a complex full-blown dynamic analysis needs
to be performed to assess dynamic responses to rapidly applied axial loads.
The Response of Structural Cables to Dynamic Axial Loads. Sikander
Masood
STUDENT ID: 200863046
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Various individuals have contributed towards this final year project. I would like to
express appreciation to all concerned.
I would firstly thank my supervisor Dr. Ryan Judge for being so patient with me and
believing in me until the end, despite me facing unforeseen mitigating circumstances
several times over the last year.
Secondly I would like to thank the head of civil engineering at the University of
Liverpool Dr. Steve Jones who despite having such a busy schedule was always there to
give me advise whenever needed.
Lastly I would like to thank my family, friends for their support and encouragement
during this research.
2
Masood
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 AIM ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 18
2.0 CABLE ROOF SYSTEM AND ITS MODELLING ................................................................. 21
2.1 THE STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................... 21
2.2 Oasys GSA Modelling: ............................................................................................................ 22
2.3 SECTION PROPERTIES OF THE CABLE STAYS ............................................................... 22
2.4 SUDDEN CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 23
3.1 LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 26
CABLE IN SCENARIO (BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STATIC ANALYSIS).......................... 26
BENCHMARK ................................................................................................................................... 27
TOTAL LOADS AND REACTIONS ............................................................................................... 28
3.2 CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 29
STATIC LINEAR ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 29
AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM............................................................................................................... 29
3.3 STATIC NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS USING GSS RELAX SOLVER .................................... 32
3.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 35
STEPS TO DO AN EXPLICIT NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ON Oasys LS-DYNA.

.............................................................................................................................................................. 36
PRE PROCESSING on OASYS PRIMER ...................................................................................... 37
REFERENCES:................................................................................................................................... 40
3
Masood
TABLE OF FIGURES.
Figure 1: True stress versus strain rate at Room Temperature. (Source: Loading Rate
Effects on Tensile Properties and Fracture Toughness of Steel, Dr C S Wiesner, TWI
and Mr H MacGillivray, 1999.)........................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: 127 mm diameter locked coil. ................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4: 127 mm spiral strand. ................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5: 160 mm parallel strand cable.................................................................................................. 9
Figure 6: Image on top showing cable catenary structural system. Image at bottom
showing a cable stay system. ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Multiple exposure photograph illustrating geometrically nonlinear response of
a suspended cable (Source: Max Irvine). Representative segment when many
concentrated vertical loads act in addition to cable self-weight. ..................................... 11
Figure 8: Schematic illustration of Loading mechanism during dynamic testing (Source:
McCann, 2006) ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 9: Socketing process at Bridon. (Source: Dr. Ryan Judge PHD thesis, 2012) ........... 14
Figure 10: Failed connection sockets due to dynamic loading. (Source: HSL report 487,
McCann 2006) ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 14 ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 17: Cable prestress force multiplied by the DAF and applied as nodal loads. ........ 23
Figure 19: Contour plot of axial forces for the benchmark model............................................. 26
Figure 20: : Contour plot of nodal deflections for the benchmark model. ............................. 27
Figure 21 ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 22 contour plots of nodal deflections for the Static linear analysis in the cable out
model......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 23: contour plots of axial forces for the Static non linear analysis in the cable out
model......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 24: contour plots of nodal deflections for the Static non linear analysis in the
cable out model ..................................................................................................................................... 34
4
Masood
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Consideration of accidental breakage of cables in a cable-stayed roof is necessary
when keeping uncertainty in mind and also a compulsion imposed by various
design codes. Public structures such as stadiums should be designed to withstand
local failure. Due to their low intrinsic damping they are very sensitive to dynamic
excitations (Mohammadi et al, 2011).
When a cable snaps off, high strain rates are induced in the remaining cables,
requiring them to take the extra load very quickly. Strain rate is the differential of
strain with respect to time. At high strain rates, tests have shown that it leads to
positive strain rate dependence as shown in the figure below, i.e. the yield stress
value increases (Dr C S Wiesner, TWI and Mr H MacGillivray, 1999).
Figure 1: True stress versus strain rate at Room Temperature. (Source: Loading Rate Effects on Tensile Properties and
Fracture Toughness of Steel, Dr C S Wiesner, TWI and Mr H MacGillivray, 1999.)
Eurocode 1 Part 1.7 states that DAF should be 2 when a dynamic impulse load is
applied on the structure and it responds elastically. This value has been derived
from the equation of motion of single degree of freedom systems and quasi-static
analyses where the breakage load is applied statically and amplified using these
factors. This may not be sufficient for analysing complex systems such as stadium
5
Masood
roofs. Ruiz-Teran AM and Aparicio AC have proven in their study that was
published in the Journal of Sound and Vibration in 2007 that the DAF’s in such
systems may exceed the values specified in the codes. Acceleration is induced in
the entire stadium roof and supporting cables causing them to vibrate about a new
position. If the rest of the cables can support this dynamic load, the vibrations
damp out after a certain time and once again equilibrium is reached else a collapse
mechanism may be triggered.
A lot of study has been done on accidental loss of cable in bridges, this study looks
at cable supported stadium roof. There is lack of research regarding the breakage
time of stay cables and the way in which the tension is lost and whether the quasi-
static approach of using DAF is enough when trying to make the structure robust
and resilient to uncertainties.
1.2 AIM
This project examines how stranded structural cables respond to dynamic axial
loading in simple cable stayed structures and their global response by simulating
a cable loss. The dynamic response due to the sudden high strain rates induced
into the other cables will be assessed. A non-linear dynamic analysis on the
structure will be done by the use of industry standard FEA packages. Comparisons
will be made to the design codes in order to verify the dynamic amplification
factors suggested in them when designing for resilience.
1.3 Objectives
 Model a cable stayed structure to simulate a sudden cable loss.

 Analyse the global dynamic response of the structure and verify that the
dynamic amplification factors compare to the ones specified in the design
codes.
 Verify if the axial forces in the elements are in accordance with the
suggested equivalent static factors suggested in design codes.
6
Masood
1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.4.1 STRUCTURAL CABLES

Recently cable stayed structures have become more popular and a recent surge
has been seen in building systems using prestressed cables to support the loads,
as they can cover large areas and still without the need for columns. They are
being used to support long span bridges, giant Ferris wheels, stadium roofs and
cable net façade systems to name a few. These structures are loaded in tension,
with no requirement to resist compression or bending forces.
Cable structures are flexible with low intrinsic damping; their strength lies in the
fact that they can adapt to disturbances. Design process involves defining an
economical geometry that can resist all the design loads. It requires the designer
to define the set of cable lengths, the construction methodology needs to be
carefully analysed in order to overcome the erection problems, and the effect that
inaccuracy could have on the final structure. Anchorages and clamps also need to
be designed accordingly and the right level of pre stress must be applied. Their
structural analysis involves checking the final structure for effects of the applied
loads, analysing the structure globally to check for dynamic stability and other
periodic loads and safety of the occupants of the structure is assessed by designing
it to be insensitive to local failure thus adding to the robustness.
A steel wire is the

smallest tension
element in a wire.
Figure 2: Examples of cable stayed structures. 1) Etihad Stadium, Manchester, 2) There are four main
Milau Viaduct, France, 3) Cable net glass façade wall at Dubai Airport (Image types of cables used
Source: Wikipedia) in structural
7
Masood
applications namely locked coil strand, spiral strand, parallel strand bundle and
wire rope strand. Among them the locked coil strand and the spiral strand are
most commonly used.
The locked coil strand is a helically spun round wire built up in circumferential
layers each spun in opposite directions along a central wire. This arrangement
minimises residual torque and wire decoiling that result from elastic stresses
induced in the wires during their manufacture. They are available in sizes varying
from 20 – 180 mm in diameter. They have an outer cover of helically spun full lock
z shaped wires.
Figure 3: 127 mm diameter locked coil.
The spiral strand is similar to the locked coil strand; the outer cover of the
interlocking z shaped wires wire absent. They are available in sizes ranging from
13 – 165 mm.
Figure 4: 127 mm spiral strand.
The wire rope strand is an assembly of spiral strands that are made of bundles of
8
Masood
spiral strand that are made up of smaller wires. They are laid helically around the
central core that can be a strand or another independent wire rope.
The parallel strand is an assembly of either individual wires or bundles of spiral
strands laid in a straight line parallel to one another. Their diameter is large and
are typically used for the main catenary and hangar cables on large cable
suspension bridges. (Bridon Structural Systems, 2007)
Figure 5: 160 mm parallel strand cable
1.4.2 CABLE CATENARY and CABLE STAY STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

A uniform inextensible cable or chain hangs between two fixed points that are at the same
level. The elements of the cable are assumed to be flexible, devoid of flexural rigidity and
can withstand tension forces only. James Bernoulli stated that the action of any part of the
line upon its neighbour is purely tangential. The cables used in this structural system are
composed of many individual wires wound together that give very high strength and
stiffness in axial tension. When loaded the cable sags, it takes a shape that allows it to
bear loads in pure tension. If the loading is uniform the most optimum shape of the cable
catenary is parabolic. The major drawback of this system is that deck is not very stiff and
can experience twisting motion if caught in a vortex of wind.
A cable stay system is suspended between two rigid supports that are not necessarily at
the same level. They are stiffer and more cost effective than the suspension systems. It
can also have intermediate spans.
9
Masood
Figure 6: Image on top showing cable catenary structural system. Image at bottom showing a cable stay system.
1.4.3 MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD (MBL)

This is a common value used for the strength of a cable for all design purposes. It is the
minimum-breaking load a cable will always achieve in a failure test.
In accordance with Euro code 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-11 (BSI, 2006) this value
is derived using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods.
The following relationship is provided in the codes that help estimate this value.
𝑑2 𝑅𝑟 𝐾
𝑀𝐵𝐿 (𝑘𝑁) = 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛
1000
d is the diameter of the cable in mm
K is the breaking force factor
Rr is the grade of wires in Mpa
𝜋𝑓𝑘
The breaking force factor, 𝐾 = 4
F is the fill factor of the cable

K is the spinning loss factor
1.4.4 GEOMETRIC NON-LINEARITY IN CABLE SYSTEM

In an experiment performed by Max Irvine, a deep cable profile was taken with both
supports at same level like a catenary system. Initially the cable hung by its own weight,
10
Masood
later the cable was loaded in two increments at near the quarter span point as shown in
figure 4. Measured and calculated displacements had a difference of 4% which represents
the geometric non linearity.
Figure 7: Multiple exposure photograph illustrating geometrically nonlinear response of a suspended cable (Source: Max
Irvine). Representative segment when many concentrated vertical loads act in addition to cable self-weight.
The geometric nonlinearity is caused due to the stiffening of the cable after the first step
load. This stiffening effect characterizes cable response when additional loads are applied.
The horizontal and vertical displacement of the load point is of the same magnitude on
account of the deep profile of the cable and the fact the loads are place close to the end
support. Effects of cable elasticity were found to be practically negligible by him.
Helical strands have lesser stiffness than parallel strands, and hence not preferred in
catenary arrangements. To overcome the non-linearity the construction industry relies
on prestressing so that the cable can have constant axial stiffness throughout, but studies
have shown it is not possible to achieve it perfectly and increases over the design life of
the structure (Raoof, 1990). It makes the stress strain curve almost linear (Butchholdt,
1985). Cable manufacturers do prestressing by applying cyclic loads typically between
10% and 50% of the cables Minimum Breaking Load (Ryan Judge, 2012).
A cable strand is 30% cheaper than a rope for the same load carrying capacity.
Strands are lightweight and have smaller diameters making them easier to handle.
The elastic modulus can be verified through lab tests. The drawback of the strands
is that they are stiffer than the rope thus limiting the deflections; hence non-
linearity of the materials cannot be exploited well. The biggest disadvantage
comes from the bending stiffness; even slight mishandling of cables result in the
individual wires to buckle out. It may also cause overstressing when sockets are
installed (Wyatt, 1960). In comparison ropes are much easier to grip.
The load a cable can take is directly proportional to the product of curvature and
tension.
11
Masood
𝜔 =𝐾×𝑇
∆𝜔 = 𝐾∆𝑇 + 𝑇∆𝐾
Arup Fellow Pat Dallard in his speech at the event held on 26 March 2013 at Arup's
London office “Engineers Imagine - An Evening at Arup Exploring the Engineering
Legacy of Peter Rice” points out that analysing the differential of this equation and
trying to control (∆𝐾) is the key in tackling displacement issues arising in cable
stayed structures. He makes it apparent that the way in which the load on the cable
can change is in two ways, with the original curvature its tension can increase a
little (∆𝑇) or the tension can apply to a reshaped cable (∆𝐾) that enables it to bear
more load.
At the time of manufacture the cables are not fully elastic, prestressing allows the
wire to find their final position and have well defined elastic characteristics.
Material and geometric non linearity may be present; the degree of non-linearity
depends on the way the cable is loaded in a structure.
1.4.5 HSL REPORT
The health and safety labs investigation into the performance deterioration in
compacted strand wire ropes involved testing of two sizes of ropes 25 mm and 32
mm to quasi-static and dynamic loadings. For the quasi static test a uniaxial load
was applied to the rope at one end of the test bed. For the dynamic test free rolling
impact truck weighing 5500 kg running on a set of rails were used (Figure 5a).
This truck had catcher plates that pick up compatible plates fitted to free end of
rope specimen. The other end of the rope was connected to a fixed mounting point
between the inner rails of the track (Figure 5c). The mounting pin contained an
integral 1500 kN shear pin type load cell. When the truck passes over the rope and
picks up the catcher plate attached to the free end of the rope specimen high strain
rates due to dynamic loads were induced.
12
Masood
Figure 8: Schematic illustration of Loading mechanism during dynamic testing (Source: McCann, 2006)
This experiment brought attention of the designers to an alarming fact, during

static loading there was no significant socket damage and the failure always
occurred in the rope thus being in agreement with the technical literature
provided by the cable manufacturers that states ‘the cable would fail before the
terminations yeild’. HSL lap report showed this was true only for quasi static
loadings and was not true for dynamic loads.
However, failure occurred in socket terminations during the dynamic axial load
test substantially below the expected minimum breaking loads for both the rope
and sockets.
Dynamic tests produced peak failure loads
The strength of the structural cables deteriorated over time. In the worst case it
13
Masood
was found to be 12% lower than the minimum-breaking load specified by the
manufacturer after a period of six months.
1.4.6 END TERMINATIONS
These grip the cable at the ends and form an important element in the load path.
End terminals are generally classified by the materials used, Cast zinc sockets,
pressed or swaged fittings and friction fittings clamped on the cable are most
widely used. There is a wedge shaped void in the sockets into which the cables
are fitted. After the cable is inside the socket the individual wires of the cable are
spread and separated within the socket, it appears as a stiff broom as shown in
the image below. The socket void containing the separated wires is filled with
resin. The sockets are designed to be at least 110% of the cable strength. They are
of two types generally open sockets and closed sockets.
Figure 9: Socketing process at Bridon. (Source: Dr. Ryan Judge PHD thesis, 2012)
RESEARCH REPORT 487 on evaluation of performance deterioration in compact

strand wire ropes prepared by the Health and safety laboratory for the Health and
safety executive in 2006 showed that dynamic loading at high strain rate caused
14
Masood
them to fail prematurely. 40% of the sockets failed even though they had been
manufactured in compliance with RR-S-500D “Federal Specification – Socket Wire
Ropes”.
Figure 10: Failed connection sockets due to dynamic loading. (Source: HSL report 487, McCann 2006)
1.4.7 SIMPLIFIED SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM MODELLING
The dynamic behaviour of a cable can be modelled reasonably accurately by using SDOF
methods. Material properties relating to strength such as yield stress and ultimate tensile
strength are required. Steel exhibits strength enhancements at high strain rates and this
is accounted for using a dynamic increase factor (DIF).
𝜎𝐷𝑌𝑁𝐴𝑀𝐼𝐶
𝐷𝐼𝐹 =
𝜎𝑌𝐸𝐼𝐿𝐷
1.4.8 COWPER SYMONDS MATERIAL MODEL
This relationship attempts to model strain rate dependency in steels and other materials
and is commonly used to calculate the enhancement of stresses due to strain rate effects.
The relationship is expressed as follows:
1
𝜎𝑑 𝜀 𝑞
=1+( )
𝜎𝑠 𝐷
Where
𝜎𝑑 is the dynamic stress at a particular strain rate
15
Masood
𝜎𝑠 is the static stress
𝜀 is the uniaxial strain rate
D and q are constants specific to steel.
1.4.9. CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS

Lots of research has been
done on disproportionate
collapse of cable-stayed
bridges due to sudden
cable loss, there is very
little information on how
roofs may respond to such
conditions. The most
common cause of failure is
accidental loading. The
failure of the cable is
brittle thus loads are Figure 11: Cable snap resulting in San Francisco Bridge being
induced dynamically into closed for repairs.
other cables and the rest of the structure. The American Society of Civil Engineers states
Figure 12: Mezcala Bridge in Mexico, one of the cable caught fire due to lightening strike in
2007.
that building structures should be able to “sustain local damage with the structural
system as a whole remaining stable and not being damaged to an extent disproportionate
to original local damage.” American design codes suggest Alternate Path Methods (AP)
16
Masood
and Specific Load Resistance Methods (SLR) to allow consideration of local failure of
elements in a building during the design stage. They do not explicitly refer to cable stay
bridges or roofs but they may be analysed using the same methods. For static analysis of
this scenario and DAF of 2.0 is used, Eurocodes and the Post Tensioning Institute also
back this factor. The cable pretension force is multiplied by 2 and applied as nodal loads
at the anchorage point of the failed cable (S. Gerasimidis, 2011).
Ruiz Teran & Aparicio 2009 analysed a sudden cable loss and made some design
recommendations. Firstly, the dynamic response must be analysed by doing a full
dynamic analysis on the structure in considerations rather than the values suggested in
the Eurocode 3 Part 1.11 and Eurocode 1 Part 1.7. Secondly, if the breakage time is equal
to or smaller than 1% of the natural frequency of the structure a sudden cable loss
condition may be assumed in which time (t) for breaking of the cable is zero. If the
breakage time is greater than the natural frequency the same method may still be use but
it would make the structure redundant. The analysis gets more complex when the cable
takes some time to break, but the peak responses obtained are significantly lower.
Damping may be used in the structure to reduce the dynamic response.
Figure 13: Glasgow’s Clyde Arch bridge was closed after a cable snapped in
2008.
M Wolff & U. Starossek also performed a non-linear analysis to study the loss of a single
cable in a bridge to validate the factors suggested in the codes to evaluate the peak
response. They concluded that a uniform factor could not be specified as the response
mainly depends on the location of failure zone. The amplification factors in the cables
17
Masood
were in the range of 1.3 to 2.7. Analysis of the pylon showed they were higher than 3 in it.
Thus they also recommend doing a dynamic time history analysis on the structure. The
peak response is generally present in one of the longer cable but may not necessarily be
the longest cable. The structure may be made redundant by increasing the stiffness, which
increases the stability of the overall structure and by increasing the number of cable stays.
The upper limit of 2.0 suggested in the design codes is applicable to SDOF structures and
may result in under estimation of forces in complex MDOF structures.
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The software’s that will be used in this study are:

Oasys GSA
It helps in finding the correct geometry and prestress forces for tension only structures
such as fabric structures; fabric roofs and cable nets are crucial. GSA Suite gives you the
control to offset the effects of fabric to cable prestress, radial to circumferential stresses,
and more. GSA Suite’s easy-to-use interface and online helps in creating and sculpting
models quickly. It has a powerful dynamic relaxation non-linear solver to find the
optimum structural arrangement, and then analyse and design it to all the serviceability
and ultimate loads. It can analyse structures with large deflections, plastic yielding of
materials, snap-through, sway effects, and more. GSA Suite uses the dynamic relaxation
method to enable you to analyse structures. It includes both modal analysis for calculation
of the natural dynamic frequencies of your structure and Ritz analysis specially designed
for seismic response calculations. GSA Suite also enables you to calculate the structural
response using a number of dynamic post processors, including seismic response to
multiple international codes, linear time history, harmonic loads for vibrating machinery,
and more.
Originally developed in-house at Arup, GSA Suite has already proved its worth on projects
such as ‘The Water Cube’ National Aquatics Centre in Beijing and the New York Museum
of Modern Art (MoMA).
1.5.1 Oasys Primer (Pre Processor)

Oasys Ltd is the software house of Arup and distributor of the LS-DYNA software in the
UK, India and China. They develop the Oasys Suite of pre- and post-processing software
for use with LS-DYNA. The Oasys Suite of software, exclusively written for LS-DYNA, is at
the leading edge of the pre- and post-processing markets and is used worldwide by many
of the largest LS-DYNA customers. It improves user productivity and efficiency thus
reducing the time spent manipulating and developing models suitable for LS-DYNA.
18
Masood
Oasys PRIMER main priority is to provide complete support for every LS-DYNA
keyword. The user can be assured that every model read in and written out will
lose no data. Oasys PRIMER is designed specifically for pre-processing with LS-
DYNA; therefore the user interface is clear, simple and tailored towards it without
any compromises. All of the common keywords can be created, modified and
graphically visualised to help users understand exactly what a model contains and
how the various entities are inter-related.
1.5.2 LS-DYNA (Solver)

It is a multiphysics FEA package that has been developed by Livermore Software
Technology Corporation. It is cable of performing highly nonlinear transient dynamic
finite element analysis using explicit time integration and is suitable to study high strain
rate inducing scenarios on the cable structures where material, contact and geometric
non linearity need to be accounted for. The R&D department of leading automotive
industries such as Hyundai commonly uses this solver to do car crash analysis; Arup uses
it to solve non-linear problems in structural analysis that cannot be handled by Oasys GSA.
Oasys D3PLOT (Post-Processor)

It provides an easy in-depth access to results data (>100 data components). It provides
Fast, high-quality graphics. Function keys can be programmed to execute command files
and cut-sections can be easily created and dragged using the mouse. Results data may be
plotted by contour, principal stress (stress flow), velocity vector, ISO surface and node
clouds. It also has relative value plots available (deformation relative to axes fixed in the
model or change from a given time-state). It allows plotting of user-defined data from an
external file, formula or script. Results can be outputted in the following formats JPEG,
BMP, GIF, PNG, PDF, Postscript, AVI and MPEG.
1.5.4 WORKFLOW
Simple cable structures will first be modelled using Oasys GSA, section properties will be
assigned and a static analysis using design guideline provided by the Structural
Eurocodes. The structure will first be analysed with all the cables intact and a benchmark
would be established. For the next analysis one of the tie elements will be deleted to
simulate a single cable loss. The prestress force in the cable at that point would be
multiplied by an amplification factor of 2.0 and applied as nodal loads at points of its
anchorages in the opposite direction. This analysis shows the effect of the dynamic
loading relative to the serviceability limit conditions of the structure.
19
Masood
A consecutive cable loss may be caused if the nearby cable reaches its ultimate limit state,
instead of using the same method suggested by the design codes, the ultimate breaking
force will be applied in opposite directions to simulate this. The increased stress and
dynamic loads may cause more cable to fail catastrophically.
The model will then be imported into Oasys Primer for pre-processing. Once the model is
ready a full non-linear explicit dynamic analysis will be performed on Oasys LSDYNA.
In the first model all the cables will be given same strain rates. In the other varying strain
rates will be applied. Results of the dynamic response from the simulation will be studied.
20
Masood
2.0 CABLE ROOF SYSTEM AND ITS MODELLING
2.1 THE STRUCTURE
The structure considered in this study is a cable supported train station roof. The station
canopy is an organic structure. The concept was that it should resemble a leaf as it would
be near a business park and would serve as the entrance gateway and act as a landmark
to the new development.
Cable prestress forces were determined using non-linear analysis and wind tunnel testing.
Figure 14
The curved roof plate has a 45 m dia. in

circular plan and 75m radius in side
elevation. Its main structural member is
an over shaped, tensioned catenary made
from 500 mm dia. circular hollow section
steel with thickness varying from 25mm
to 45 mm. This supports horizontal rafters
at 3m centres which are attached at their
quarter length positions and made from
12mm thick fabricated rectangular box
section 600 mm deep with tapered end
Figure 15: Dimensions of the cable structure. cantilevers.
Discrete 20 mm dia. stainless steel wire cross bracing was used as bracings to restrain the
rafters as the inherent in plane stiffness of the roof deck plate can be relied upon
21
Masood
2.2 Oasys GSA Modelling:
The roof structure is supported from the pylon by 26 steel locked coil strand cable stays
and an equal number of back stays anchored onto the rear anchor base These cables vary
in length from 14.7 m to 53.4 m and their diameter varies from 32 to 72 mm. In addition
to the main array of cables there are eight short 80 mm dia. tie-down cables in 2 groups
of 4 at the front lowest part of the roof and a further two 80 mm dia. backstays connected
to the pylon at the level it connects to the roof.
The cables have pinned connections at the foundations, the pylon and the roof structure.
Figure 16: Shear Force and Bending Moments on the overall structure.
2.3 SECTION PROPERTIES OF THE CABLE STAYS
FRONT STAYS
REF REF ELEME ELEME STRAND MBL PRESTRESS
NO. NO. NT NO. NT NO. DIA. (mm) (kN) FORCE (kN)
1 FS1 FS2 307 308 62 3590 765
2 FS3 FS4 305 306 52 2625 680
3 FS5 FS6 299 300 52 2625 870
4 FS7 FS8 297 298 50 2470 695
5 FS9 FS10 295 296 50 2470 650
6 FS11 FS12 293 294 46 2020 485
7 FS13 FS14 291 292 42 1680 365
8 FS15 FS16 289 290 42 1680 340
9 FS17 FS18 287 288 42 1680 270
10 FS19 FS20 285 286 36 1230 150
11 FS21 FS22 283 284 36 1230 120
12 FS23 FS24 281 282 36 1010 105
13 FS25 FS26 279 280 32 1010 75
14 FS 27 FS28 54 55 32 6390 6525
22
Masood
BACK
STAYS
15 BS1 BS2 15 2 72 5080 1050
16 BS3 BS4 311 314 60 3590 940
17 BS5 BS6 275 276 46 2020 620
18 BS7 BS8 23 12 42 1680 550
19 BS9 BS10 22 11 36 1230 285
20 BS11 BS12 21 10 36 1230 245
21 BS13 BS14 20 9 32 1010 200
22 BS15 BS16 19 8 32 1010 190
23 BS17 BS18 18 7 32 1010 180
24 BS19 BS20 17 6 32 1010 140
25 BS21 BS22 16 5 32 1010 130
26 BS23 BS24 14 4 32 1010 90
27 BS25 BS26 13 1 32 1010 75
28 BS27 BS28 50 51 80 6390 1480
2.4 SUDDEN CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS
Figure 17: Cable prestress force multiplied by the DAF and applied as nodal loads.
23
Masood
ELEMENTS AND NODES MONITORED DURING ANALYSIS
CABLE Element No. CORRESPONDING NODES

REFERENCE
FS10 296 37 51
FS8 293 53 36
FS12 297 49 38
First a linear static analysis was performed to establish a benchmark. The forestay cable
FS10 was considered as lost during this study. This sudden cable loss is not considered to
coincide with live loads and gravity loadings.
The effect of this lost cable on the entire structure was studied by monitoring the axial
forces in the elements and the displacements at critical nodes.
The dynamics loads induced into the structure were taken into account by using
equivalent static factors referred to as Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF’s) in various
design codes.
A DAF value of 2 was used in this
analysis in accordance with the PTI
recommendations
The prestress force in the lost cable
was doubled and applied as nodal
loads
Using the GSS solver in Oasys GSA a
static linear analysis was performed
in which the responses to the applied
loads is assumed to be linear
Later the GS-Relax solver present in Figure 18: stress strain curves for linear and non linear
the software was used to perform a static analysis.
non-linear static analysis.
The following material properties were assigned to the cables. This allows the stiffness in
the elements to change as the loads are applied gradually.
24
Masood
25
Masood
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
CABLE IN SCENARIO (BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STATIC ANALYSIS)
Figure 19: Contour plot of axial forces for the benchmark model.
AXIAL FORCES IN THE CRITIICAL ELEMENTS
Maxima
55 C1 72 5471
308 C1 43 840.8
308 C1 40 849.5
1 C1 28 90.91
1 C1 28 90.91
1 C1 28 90.91
293 C1 53 447.8
25.00% 448.1
50.00% 448.4
75.00% 448.7
36 449
296 C1 37 573.9
25.00% 572.7
50.00% 571.6
75.00% 570.5
26
Masood
51 569.3
297 C1 49 669.3
25.00% 670.5
50.00% 671.7
75.00% 672.9
38 674.1
Figure 20: : Contour plot of nodal deflections for the benchmark model.
BENCHMARK
Node BENCHMARK Displacement

(mm)
FS10 37 0
51 51.15
FS8 53 65.32
36 0
FS12 49 26.18
38 0
Global Maximum Vertical

Displacement
Node Displacement
(mm)
104 -30.45
54 64.12
54 64.12
54 64.12
27
Masood
113 12.31
99 24.38
116 -6.819
107 3.212
54 64.12
TOTAL LOADS AND REACTIONS
28
Masood
3.2 CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS
STATIC LINEAR ANALYSIS
AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM
Figure 21
REF NO. MBL (kN) STATIC DCR

LINEAR RATIO
ANALYSIS
FS1 3590 828 0.23
FS2 3590 997.1 0.28
FS3 2625 714 0.27
FS4 2625 849 0.32
FS5 2625 874.5 0.33
FS6 2625 1049 0.40
FS7 2470 859.4 0.35
FS8 2470 667 0.27
FS9 2470 569.7 0.23
FS10 2470 CABLE
LOSS
FS11 2020 515.5 0.26
FS12 2020 451.1 0.22
FS13 1680 245.7 0.15
FS14 1680 392.6 0.23
FS15 1680 311.3 0.19
FS16 1680 212.6 0.13
29
Masood
FS17 1680 210.9 0.13
FS18 1680 101.2 0.06
FS19 1230 150.6 0.12
FS20 1230 86.09 0.07
FS21 1230 82.83 0.07
FS22 1230 85 0.07
FS23 1010 97.77 0.10
FS24 1010 93.97 0.09
FS25 1010 83.88 0.08
FS26 1010 83.17 0.08
FS27 6390 4613 0.72
FS28 6390 5329 0.83
BS1 5080 1231 0.24

BS2 5080 1086 0.21
BS3 3590 1078 0.30
BS4 3590 1078 0.30
BS5 2020 1076 0.53
BS6 2020 1076 0.53
BS7 1680 969.1 0.58
BS8 1680 969.1 0.58
BS9 1230 632.7 0.51
BS10 1230 632.7 0.51
BS11 1230 561.9 0.46
BS12 1230 561.9 0.46
BS13 1010 291.5 0.29
BS14 1010 288.6 0.29
BS15 1010 248.7 0.25
BS16 1010 251.3 0.25
BS17 1010 204 0.20
BS18 1010 204 0.20
BS19 1010 196 0.19
BS20 1010 196 0.19
BS21 1010 184 0.18
BS22 1010 186 0.18
BS23 1010 136 0.13
BS24 1010 144 0.14
BS25 1010 90.91 0.09
BS26 1010 90.91 0.09
BS27 6390 1483 0.23
BS28 6390 1477 0.23
30
Masood
Figure 22 contour plots of nodal deflections for the Static linear analysis in the cable out model
CABLE OUT STATIC LINEAR

ANALYSIS
FS10 37 0
51 -10.63
FS8 53 4.701
36 -15.49
FS12 49 0
38 0
Global Maximum Vertical Displacement

119 -0.001304
59 0.0406
54 0.05484
54 0.05484
100 0.007853
100 0.007853
75 0
109 -0.0312
59 0.0406
31
Masood
3.3 STATIC NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS USING GSS RELAX SOLVER
Figure 23: contour plots of axial forces for the Static non linear analysis in the cable out model
REF NO. MBL (kN) AXIAL FORCE IN CABLES (kN) DCR RATIO
FS1 3590 806 0.22
FS2 3590 980 0.27
FS3 2625 697.7 0.27
FS4 2625 829 0.32
FS5 2625 858.4 0.33
FS6 2625 1027 0.39
FS7 2470 838.6 0.34
FS8 2470 654 0.26
FS9 2470 560.2 0.23
FS10 2470 CABLE LOSS
FS11 2020 511 0.25
FS12 2020 449.3 0.22
FS13 1680 243.2 0.14
FS14 1680 384.6 0.23
FS15 1680 511 0.30
FS16 1680 210.9 0.13
FS17 1680 208.9 0.12
FS18 1680 101.1 0.06
FS19 1230 148.7 0.12
FS20 1230 84.05 0.07
FS21 1230 79.93 0.06
FS22 1230 83.6 0.07
FS23 1010 94.91 0.09
32
Masood
FS24 1010 92 0.09
FS25 1010 81.41 0.08
FS26 1010 83.36 0.08
FS27 6390 4442 0.70
FS28 6390 5180 0.81
BS1 5080 1231 0.24

BS2 5080 1086 0.21
BS3 3590 1078 0.30
BS4 3590 1078 0.30
BS5 2020 1076 0.53
BS6 2020 1076 0.53
BS7 1680 969.1 0.58
BS8 1680 969.1 0.58
BS9 1230 632.7 0.51
BS10 1230 632.7 0.51
BS11 1230 561.9 0.46
BS12 1230 561.9 0.46
BS13 1010 291.5 0.29
BS14 1010 288.6 0.29
BS15 1010 248.7 0.25
BS16 1010 251.3 0.25
BS17 1010 204 0.20
BS18 1010 204 0.20
BS19 1010 196 0.19
BS20 1010 196 0.19
BS21 1010 184 0.18
BS22 1010 186 0.18
BS23 1010 136 0.13
BS24 1010 144 0.14
BS25 1010 90.91 0.09
BS26 1010 90.91 0.09
BS27 6390 1483 0.23
BS28 6390 1477 0.23
33
Masood
Figure 24: contour plots of nodal deflections for the Static non linear analysis in the cable out
model
FS10 37 0
51 -7.451
FS8 53 6.406
36 0
FS12 49 -11.46
38 0
Global Maximum Vertical Displacement

119 -1.312
59 38.99
54 52.53
54 52.53
100 5.624
100 5.624
75 0
109 -28.48
59 38.99
34
Masood
3.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results obtained from the static linear and non-linear analysis were very similar.
Axial Forces in the cable resulting from Gravity and prestress forces are much lower than
their MBL’s.
Significant increase in axial forces is observed in the cables adjacent to the one considered
as failed. Rapid load redistribution takes place.
Away from the point of cable loss considered the axial forces in the cables was almost the
same as before.
The static analysis both linear and non linear gave conservative results, as it does not
allow us to analyse spikes in the cable forces away from the point of cable loss.
The demand to capacity ratios for the cables show that even after the loss of the cable the
structure were less than 1 thus indicating they are still in an elastic range.
Initiation of progressive collapse would take after the DCR ratios reach 1, which would
result in plastic hinge formations in the structure.
The non-linear static analysis does not take into account the inertia and damping forces
present in this structural system.
Deflections were seen increasing in the vicinity of the lost cable but global maximum
vertical displacements for linear and non-linear analysis after the loss of the cable are
under SLS and ULS conditions were within the euro code limits.
35
Masood
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER RESEARCH
 As the static analysis does not capture the repercussions of the event of cable loss.
It is recommended that a full explicit non linear dynamic analysis must be
performed in order to study spikes in axial forces away from the point of cable
loss.
STEPS TO DO AN EXPLICIT NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC
ANALYSIS ON Oasys LS-DYNA.
PREPROCESSING STEPS to be done on the benchmark GSA model before

opening the model on Oasys primer.
STEP 0:
In case of occupancy reduce live loads by 65%. As this is an organic roof
structure it is not applicable here. Only permanent and dead loads should
be taken into account.
STEP 1:
Pick a few reference points as benchmarks. These will be monitored as
changes are made to the model.
STEP 2:
All bar elements must be changed to beam elements. At node 1 these
elements must be released along xx yy & zz axes, and at node 2 they must
be released in yy & zz directions only to prevent the element from
spinning.
STEP 3:
The model must now be analysed using the load case described in step 0.
Displacements and reactions at the reference nodes must be compared to
the values in STEP 1 and consistency of the results must be maintained.
STEP 4:
36
Masood
All the beam elements in this model must now be split into 4 parts to allow
formation of plastic hinges in the structure.
STEP 5:
STEP 6:
All loads must now be converted to Lumped Masses to ensure the inertial
effects are captured.
STEP 7:
PRE PROCESSING on OASYS PRIMER
Step 1:
Find natural frequency of the structure through dynamic relaxation to
have a benchmark by performing a transient analysis.
It can be carried out by setting system damping (VALDMP) as 5% under
the DAMPING_GLOBAL control card.
STEP 2:
Assign prestress values to the parts by giving them material law
MAT_CABLE Discrete
STEP 3:
Assign load curve to perform the dynamic relaxation procedure. Under
this gravity and prestress forces are applied gradually and the structure is
37
Masood
allowed to take its natural
form. Recommended time is
2 seconds to apply gravity +
prestress and the analysis
should be allowed to run for
another 10 seconds until the
structure stops oscillating
and reaches a steady state.
Figure 25: load curve for dynamic relaxation
STEP 4:
Generate an axial for time history data using D3PLOT and keep the results
as a benchmark to compare with after the sudden cable loss is carried out.
STEP 5:
Assume cable loss takes place instantaneously. This will be carried out in
a single simulation run with staged loading using a ‘Death time’ algorithm
that allows an element to be deleted during the simulation.
STEP 6:
After saving the file the simulation will be carried out on LS-DYNA. That
will generate a data output file that may be analysed and compared with
the results obtained from STEP 4.
 A forward Monte Carlo approach using probabilistic and stochastic methods must
be used to determine the probability of this cable loss occurring over the
structures design life.
 A complex simulation that incorporates the multiphysics of the event such as a

blast scenario last that results in this loss.
38
Masood
CONCLUSION
The sudden loss of a cable is a dynamic even that results in dynamic axial loads applied
suddenly to the structure. To analyse such a complex scenario a full dynamic non-linear
analysis is required. For a practicing engineer it is very complicated and time consuming
thus researched and engineers have come up with equivalent dynamic amplification
factors that can be used with simple static equation to approximately structures.
This case study deals with a cable structures. Various design codes suggest values
between 1.5 – 2 to account for a cable loss in a structure. For static linear and non-linear
analysis the demand to curve ratios showed that the structure was still in its elastic state
with no formation of any plastic hinges. Dynamic amplification factors were also in
accordance with the results.
Changes in forces and displacements were only visible in the vicinity of the lost cable. The
forces and displacements away from them were almost the same. To analyse the global
behaviour of all the cables the literature review suggests an explicit non-linear dynamic
analysis. Step by step procedure to perform a non-linear dynamic analysis using LS-DYNA
has been provided.
39
Masood
REFERENCES:
Belytschko, T., Liu, W. and Moran, B. (2000). Nonlinear finite elements for continua
and structures. Chichester: Wiley.
Biggs, J. (1964). Introduction to structural dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fire and Blast Information Group (FABIG), (2001). Design Guide for Steels at
Elevated Temperatures and High Strain Rates. TECHNICAL NOTE AND WORKED
EXAMPLES TO SUPPLEMENT THE INTERIM GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE DESIGN
AND PROTECTION OF TOPSIDE STRUCTURES AGAINST EXPLOSION AND FIRE.
Ascot, Berkshire.: The Steel Construction Institute.
Gerasimidis, S. and Baniotopoulos, C. (2011). Disproportionate collapse analysis

of cable-stayed steel roofs for cable loss. International Journal of Steel Structures,
11(1), pp.91-98.
Irvine, H. (1981). Cable structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Judge, R. (2012). Structural Cables Subject to Blast Fragmentation. Ph.D.

University of Liverpool.
McCann, P. (2006). Evaluation of performance deterioration in compacted strand

wire ropes. RESEARCH REPORT 487. Buxton: Health and Safety Laboratory.
Pat Dallard (Arup Fellow), (2013). Engineers Imagine -- An Evening at Arup

Exploring the Engineering Legacy of Peter Rice. [video] Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnEwkDu36Uw [Accessed 8 Nov. 2014].
Rice, P. (1972). Notes on the design of cable roofs. International Association of

Shell Structures Pacific Symposium Part 2: Tension Structures and Space Frames.
Ruiz-Teran, A. and Aparicio, A. (2009). Response of under-deck cable-stayed

bridges to the accidental breakage of stay cables. Engineering Structures, 31(7),
pp.1425-1434.
40
Masood
Starossek, U. (1994). Cable Dynamics - A Review. Structural Engineering
International, 4(3), pp.171-176.
Wiesner, C. and MacGillivray, H. (1999). Loading Rate Effects on Tensile Properties

and Fracture Toughness of Steel. TAGSI Seminar - 'Fracture, Plastic Flow and
Structural Integrity' (dedicated to Sir Alan Cottrell in the year of his Eightieth
Birthday). Cambridge, UK.: The Welding Institute (TWI).
Zoli, T. and Steinhouse, J. (2007). Some considerations in the design of long span
bridges against progressive collapse. 23rd US-Japan Bridge Engineering
Workshop.
41
The Response of Structural Cables to Dynamic Axial Loads. Sikander Masood
APENDIX A: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE:
42
43
44
APENDIX B: CABLE REFERENCE
45
APENDIX C: CABLE DETAILS
46
47

The Response of Structural Cables To Dynamic Axial Loads

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Response of Structural Cables To Dynamic Axial Loads

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ABSTRACT

After catastrophic collapse of some important buildings it became

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 AIM ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 7

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 18

2.0 CABLE ROOF SYSTEM AND ITS MODELLING ................................................................. 21

2.1 THE STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Oasys GSA Modelling: ............................................................................................................ 22

2.3 SECTION PROPERTIES OF THE CABLE STAYS ............................................................... 22

2.4 SUDDEN CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 23

3.1 LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 26

CABLE IN SCENARIO (BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STATIC ANALYSIS).......................... 26

TOTAL LOADS AND REACTIONS ............................................................................................... 28

3.2 CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 29

STATIC LINEAR ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 29

AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM............................................................................................................... 29

3.3 STATIC NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS USING GSS RELAX SOLVER .................................... 32

3.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 35

STEPS TO DO AN EXPLICIT NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ON Oasys LS-DYNA.

PRE PROCESSING on OASYS PRIMER ...................................................................................... 37

Fracture Toughness of Steel, Dr C S Wiesner, TWI and Mr H MacGillivray, 1999.)

 Model a cable stayed structure to simulate a sudden cable loss.

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.4.1 STRUCTURAL CABLES

A steel wire is the

Figure 3: 127 mm diameter locked coil.

Figure 4: 127 mm spiral strand.

Figure 5: 160 mm parallel strand cable

1.4.2 CABLE CATENARY and CABLE STAY STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

1.4.3 MINIMUM BREAKING LOAD (MBL)

F is the fill factor of the cable

1.4.4 GEOMETRIC NON-LINEARITY IN CABLE SYSTEM

1.4.5 HSL REPORT

This experiment brought attention of the designers to an alarming fact, during

1.4.6 END TERMINATIONS

RESEARCH REPORT 487 on evaluation of performance deterioration in compact

1.4.7 SIMPLIFIED SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM MODELLING

1.4.8 COWPER SYMONDS MATERIAL MODEL

1.4.9. CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The software’s that will be used in this study are:

1.5.1 Oasys Primer (Pre Processor)

1.5.2 LS-DYNA (Solver)

Oasys D3PLOT (Post-Processor)

2.0 CABLE ROOF SYSTEM AND ITS MODELLING

2.1 THE STRUCTURE

The curved roof plate has a 45 m dia. in

2.2 Oasys GSA Modelling:

2.3 SECTION PROPERTIES OF THE CABLE STAYS

2.4 SUDDEN CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS

CABLE Element No. CORRESPONDING NODES

CABLE IN SCENARIO (BENCHMARK MODEL FOR STATIC ANALYSIS)

Node BENCHMARK Displacement

Global Maximum Vertical

TOTAL LOADS AND REACTIONS

3.2 CABLE LOSS ANALYSIS

STATIC LINEAR ANALYSIS

AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM

REF NO. MBL (kN) STATIC DCR

BS1 5080 1231 0.24

CABLE OUT STATIC LINEAR