non-linear time history analysis of cable stayed bridges
DESCRIPTION
This is our undergraduate course project for B.Tech civil engineering. The project included modeling of cable-stayed bridges in SAP2000, conducting non-linear static analysis and 3D earthquake analysis under multiple time history spectrum, and studying the corresponding structural response with varying pylon, deck and cable configurations.TRANSCRIPT
THE PROJECT ENTITLED
NON-LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF CABLE STAYED BRIDGES
Submitted to the DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING Submitted by Guided by
Prakash Agarwal (U06CE029) Dr. G. R. Vesmawala Shobhit Bhatnagar (U06CE043) Prof. A. J. Shah C. Uma (U06CE056)
DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Surat – 395007 GUJARAT May 2010
EXAMINER’S CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
The seminar entitled “NON-LINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF CABLE STAYED
BRIDGES” submitted by Prakash Agarwal, Shobhit Bhatnagar and C.Uma in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree in “Bachelor of Technology in
Civil Engineering” of the Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology; Surat is
hereby approved for the award of the degree.
EXAMINERS:
1.
2.
ABSTRACT
The concept of cable-stayed bridges dates back to the seventeenth century. Due to their
aesthetic appearance, efficient utilization of material, and availability of new construction
technologies, cable-stayed bridges have gained much popularity in the last few decades. After
successful construction of the Sutong Bridge, a number of bridges of this type have been
proposed and are under construction, which calls for extensive research work in this field.
Nowadays, very long span cable-stayed bridges are being built and the ambition is to further
increase the span length using shallower and slender girders. In order to achieve this, accurate
procedures need to be developed which can lead to a thorough understanding and a realistic
prediction of the bridge’s structural response under different load conditions.
In the present study, an attempt has been made to analyze the seismic response of cable-
stayed bridges with single pylon and two equal side spans. This study has made an effort to
analyze the effect of both static and dynamic loadings on cable-stayed bridges and
corresponding response of the bridge with variations in span length, pylon height and pylon
shape. Comparison of static analysis results have been made for different configuration of
bridges - their mode shapes, time period, frequency, pylon top deflection, maximum deck
deflection; and longitudinal reaction, lateral reaction and longitudinal moment at pylon
bottom. Time history analysis results have been investigated for different configuration of
bridges under the effects of three earthquakes response spectrum (Bhuj, El Centro and
Uttarkashi) - axial forces in stay cables, deck deflections and stress diagrams at maximum
peak ground acceleration of the above mentioned earthquakes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The project work would not have been possible without the valuable guidance of Dr. G R
Vesmavala and Prof. A J Shah of Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat. We, hereby
take this opportunity to express our deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to them. We are
also thankful to Mr. Kiran Joshi, M. Tech II, Applied Mechanics Department whose kind
cooperation ensured the successful and timely completion of this work.
We are also thankful to our Head of Department Dr A K Desai for providing us this
opportunity of enlightening ourselves with the technology of cable-stayed bridges.
CONTENTS
Chapter no. Topic Page no. 1. Introduction 1 Background
Historical Development Basic Theory of Cable Stayed Bridges 1.3.1. Arrangement of stay cables 1.3.2. Position of cables in space 1.3.3. Types of tower 1.3.4. Deck 1.3.5. Main girders and trusses Notable Cable Stayed Bridges
1 1 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
2. Literature review 9 2.1. Concept of Cable Stayed Bridges
2.2. Static Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges 2.3. Dynamic Behaviour of Cable Stayed Bridges 2.4. Non-Linear Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges 2.5. Seismic Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges 2.6. Need of Study 2.7. Scope of Work
9 9 10 10 11 12 12
3. Validation Study and Comparison of 2D and 3D analysis 3.1. Introduction 3.2. The 2-Dimensional Model 3.3. The 3-Dimensional Model 3.4. Analysis Results 3.5. Validation
14 14 14 15 17 20
4. Modeling of Cable Stayed Bridges 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Material Properties 4.2.1. Concrete 4.2.2. Steel 4.2.3 Steel Tendon (for cable) 4.3. Modeling of Deck 4.4. Modeling of Girder 4.4.1. Horizontal Beam 4.4.2. Edge Beam 4.4.3. External Brace 4.4.4. Internal Brace 4.5. Modeling of Pylon 4.5.1. Pylon Bottom 4.5.2. Pylon Interior 4.5.3. Pylon Top 4.6. Cable Section
21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24
4.7. Support Conditions 4.8. Time History Analysis 4.9. Time History Functions Used 4.9.1. The Bhuj Earthquake 4.9.2. The El Centro Earthquake 4.9.3. The Uttarkashi Earthquake
25 25 26 26 26 27
5. Results and Discussion 28 5.1 Introduction 28 5.2 Non-Linear Static Analysis 28 5.2.1 Time Period vs Mode Number Graphs 29 5.2.2 Frequency vs Mode Number Graphs 30 5.2.3 Pylon Top Deflection vs Pylon Height 31 5.2.4 Deck Deflection vs Pylon Height 32 5.2.5 Longitudinal Reaction Forces at Pylon Bottom 33 5.2.6 Lateral Reaction Forces at Pylon Bottom 34 5.2.7 Longitudinal Moment at Pylon Bottom 35 5.3 Non Linear Dynamic (Time History) Analysis 36 5.3.1 Maximum Deck Deflection 36 5.3.2 Axial Forces in Cables 39 5.3.3 Shell Stresses at Deck 41 6.
Conclusions
45
7.
References
46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Topic
1.1 Stay ropes on Egyptian sailing ships
1.2 Cable Arrangement Systems
1.3 Space Positions of Cables
1.4 Different Shapes of Pylon
1.5 Types of Main Girders
3.1 Layout of 2D Model
3.2 Pylon Layout
3.3 Layout of 3D Model
3.4 Deflection of 2D Model
3.5 Deflection of 3D Model
4.1 Schematic diagram representing various sections of the bridge model
4.2 The 3D CSB model in SAP2000
5.1 Time Period vs Mode Number Graphs for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.2 Frequency vs Mode Number Graphs for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.3 Pylon Top Deflections for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.4 Maximum Deck Deflections for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.5 Longitudinal Reaction at Pylon Bottom for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.6 Lateral Reaction at Pylon Bottom for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.7 Longitudinal Moment at Pylon Bottom for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
5.8 Maximum Deck Deflection for A-Pylon Models under Different Load Time
Histories
5.9 Maximum Deck Deflection for H-Pylon Models under Different Load Time
Histories
5.10 Axial Forces in Cables for A-Pylon Models under Different Load Time
Histories
5.11 Axial Forces in Cables for H-Pylon Models under Different Load Time
Histories
5.12 Deck Stresses for A-shaped pylon of Height = Span/2
5.13 Deck Stresses for A-shaped pylon of Height = Span/3
5.14 Deck Stresses for A-shaped pylon of Height = Span/4
5.15 Deck Stresses for H-shaped pylon of Height = Span/2
5.16 Deck Stresses for H-shaped pylon of Height = Span/3
5.17 Deck Stresses for H-shaped pylon of Height = Span/4
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Topic
1.1 Notable Cable Stayed Bridges
3.1 Sectional dimensions of the 2D model
3.3 First 10 mode shapes of the 2D model
3.4 First 10 mode shapes of the 3D model
3.5 Comparison of time periods of the 2D and 3D model
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
During the past decade cable-stayed bridges have found wide applications in large parts of the
world. Wide and successful application of cable-stayed systems has been realized only recently,
with the introduction of high-strength steel, orthotropic type decks, development of welding
techniques and progress in structural analysis. The variety of forms and shapes of cable-stayed
bridge intrigue even the most demanding architects as well as common citizens. Engineers have
found them technically innovating and challenging. Modern cable-stayed bridges are at present
considered to be the most interesting development in bridge design. The increasing popularity of
these contemporary bridges among bridge engineers can be attributed to its appealing aesthetics,
full and efficient utilization of structural materials, increased stiffness over suspension bridges,
efficient and fast mode of construction and the relatively small size of their substructure.
Cable-stayed bridge construction differs from conventional suspension bridges since in the
former the girder is supported by individual inclined cable members which are attached directly
to the tower, rather than by vertical hangers which are supported by one member as in the case of
cable suspended bridges. One of the main difficulties an engineer encounters when faced with
the problem of designing a cable-stayed bridge is the lack of experience with this type of
structure, predominantly due to its nonlinear behavior under normal design loads. As accurate
measurements of seismic responses are scarce in designing these bridges; the need for accurate
modeling techniques has arisen. The methods available to the designer for the study of the
bridge’s dynamic behavior are the forced vibration test of the real structure, model testing and
computer analysis. The latter approach is becoming increasingly popular since it offers the
widest range of possible parametric studies.
1.2 Historical Development
Early nineteenth century gave rise to the concept of long span bridges using steel. Towards the
end of nineteenth century, reinforced concrete was first used in bridges followed by composite
2
construction with steel and concrete, and pre-stress concrete being successfully used first in
1959. Mid twentieth century saw the revival of the cable-stayed bridge, which in concept, dates
back to seventeenth century Venice but is generally credited to Loscher (1784) in the form of a
complete timber bridge.
The history of stayed beam bridges indicates that the idea of supporting a beam by inclined ropes
or chains hanging from a mast or tower has been known since ancient times. The Egyptians
applied the idea for their sailing ships as shown in Fig 1.1. Redpath and Brown in England and
Frenchman Poyet, early in the nineteenth century, designed bridges with steel wire cable and
steel bar stays respectively. The first concrete structure to utilize cable stays was the Tempul
aqueduct with the main span of 60 m in Spain in 1925. However, the first modern cable-stayed
bridge with a steel deck, designed by F. Dischinger, a German engineer, was built in Sweden in
1955, with a main span of 183 m and fan type cable configuration supported on twin column
bents.
The cable-stayed bridge is an innovative structure that is both old and new in concept. It is old in
the sense that it has been evolving over a period of approximately four hundred years and new in
that it’s a modern day implementation began in the 1950s in Germany and started to seriously
attract the attention of bridge engineers in other parts of the world, as recently as 1970.
Fig. 1.1 Stay ropes on Egyptian sailing ships
3
It was very unfortunate that engineers have faced, for a long time, series of failures in early
attempts in building of cable-stayed girder bridges. It is widely believed that those early failures
were mainly caused by the lack of suitable high strength construction material, especially for
cables that were hung loosely under dead load and did not provide effective support for the
bridge girder under live load until the deflection of girder became extremely large, thus causing
overstress of girder. In those days, efficient analytical tools were not available for such huge and
complex structures. Now-a-days bridges of this type are entering a new era with main span
length reaching 1000 m. This fact is due to the relatively small size of the substructures required,
availability of very high strength materials, the development of efficient construction techniques
and rapid progress in the analysis and design of these types of bridges.
1.3 Basic Theory of Cable Stayed Bridges
A cable-stayed bridge is a non-linear structural system in which the girder is supported
elastically at points along its length by inclined cable stays. A wide variety of geometric
configurations have been utilized in cable-stayed bridge construction, depending on the site
conditions and utility. The concept of a cable-stayed bridge is rather simple. The bridge carries
mainly vertical loads acting on the girder with the stay cables providing intermediate supports for
the girder so that it can span large distances. The basic structural form of a cable-stayed bridge is
a series of overlapping triangles comprising the pylon or the tower, the cables and the girder. All
these members are under predominantly axial forces, with the cables under tension and both the
pylon and the girder under compression.
Modern cable-stayed bridges present a three-dimensional system consisting of stiffening girders,
transverse and longitudinal bracings, orthotropic-type deck and supporting parts such as towers
in compression and inclined cables in tension. The important characteristic of such a three-
dimensional structure is the full participation of the transverse construction in the work of the
main longitudinal structure. This means a considerable increase in the moment of inertia of the
construction, which permits a reduction in the depth of the girders, and economy in steel.
4
1.3.1 Arrangement of Stay Cables
According to the various longitudinal arrangements, cable-stayed bridges can be divided into
three basic systems – radial, harp and fan pattern (Fig. 1.2). However, except in very long span
structures, cable configuration does not have a major effect on the behavior of the bridge.
(a) Radial System
(b) Harp System
(c) Fan System
Fig. 1.2 Cable Arrangement Systems
1.3.2 Position of Cables in Space
With respect to the various positions in space, which may be adopted for the planes in which the
cable stays are disposed, there are two basic arrangements: two-plane systems and single-plane
systems (Fig. 1.3)
5
(a) Two Vertical Plane (b) Two Inclined Plane (c) Single Plane System
Fig. 1.3 Space Positions of Cables
1.3.3 Types of Tower
The various possible types of tower or pylon may be of the form of: (a) trapezoidal portal
frames; (b,c) twin towers; (d) single towers; (e) A towers; and (f,g) side towers (Fig. 1.4)
Fig. 1.4 Different Shapes of Pylon
With single towers or twin towers with no cross-member, the tower is stable in the lateral
direction as long as the level of the cable anchorages is situated above the level of the base of the
tower. In the event of the lateral displacement of the top of the tower due to wind forces, the
length of the cables is increased and the resulting increase in tension provides a restoring force.
Longitudinal moment of the tower is restricted by the restraining effect of the cables fixed at the
saddles or tower anchorages.
1.3.4 Deck
Most cable-stayed bridges have orthotropic decks, which differ from one another only as far as
the cross-sections of the longitudinal ribs, and the spacing of the cross-girders is concerned. The
orthotropic deck performs as the top chord of the main girders or trusses. It may be considered as
6
one of the main structural elements, which lead to the successful development of modern cable-
stayed bridges.
1.3.5 Main Girders and Trusses
The three basic types of main girders or trusses presently being used for cable-stayed bridges are
steel girders, trusses and reinforced or pre-stressed concrete girders (Fig. 1.5).
(a) Steel Girder
(b) Truss Girder
(c) Pre-stressed
Concrete Girder
Fig. 1.5 Types of Main Girders
1.4 Notable Cable Stayed Bridges
A list of the world’s prominent cable-stayed bridges constructed in various countries and their
salient features (in decreasing order of their main span length) are compiled in Table 1.1.
7
Rank Photograph Name Location Country
Height of pylon
Longest span Year Pylons
[1]
Sutong Bridge
Suzhou, Nantong
People's Republic of
China
306 m
1,088 m (3,570 ft) 2008 2
[2]
Stonecutters Bridge
Rambler Channel
Hong Kong
293 m 1,018 m (3,340 ft) 2009 2
[3]
Tatara Bridge
Seto Inland Sea Japan 220 m 890 m
(2,920 ft) 1999 2
[4]
Pont de Normandie
Le Havre France
214.77 m
856 m (2,808 ft) 1995 2
[5]
Incheon Bridge
Incheon South Korea 230.5 m 800 m (2,625 ft) 2009 2
[6]
Shanghai Yangtze
River Bridge
Shanghai
People's Republic of
China
270 m
730 m (2,395 ft) 2009 2
[7]
Second Nanjing
Yangtze Bridge
Nanjing, Jiangsu
People's Republic of
China
270 m 628 m (2,060 ft) 2001 2
8
[8]
Jintang Bridge
Zhoushan Archipelago
People's Republic of China
202.5 m 620 m (2,034 ft) 2009 2
[9]
Yangpu Bridge
Shanghai
People's Republic of China
223 m 602 m (1,975 ft) 1993 2
[10]
Bandra-Worli Sea Link
Mumbai India 126 m 600 m (1,969 ft) 2009 2
[11]
Taoyaomen Bridge
Zhoushan
People's Republic of
China
151 m 580 m (1,903 ft) 2003 2
[12]
Rio-Antirio Bridge
Rio Greece 163 m 560 m
(1,837 ft) (3 spans)
2004 4
[13]
Stromsund Bridge
Inderøy Norway 153.4 m 530 m (1,739 ft) 1991 2
[14]
Kanchanaphisek Bridge
Bangkok Thailand 187.6 m 500 m (1,640 ft) 2007 2
[15]
Oresund Bridge
Copenhagen, Sweden
Denmark- Sweden 204 m 490 m
(1,608 ft) 1999 2
9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Concept of Cable Stayed Bridges
The basic idea of a cable-stayed bridge is the utilization of high strength cables to provide
intermediate supports for the bridge girder so that the girder can span a much longer distance.
This introduces high compressive stresses in both the bridge girder and the towers. Technically
this is an excellent design concept and aesthetically, this has a very soothing effect on the
landscape because of its extreme slender appearance. “A cable-stayed bridge is a statically
indeterminate structure with a large degree of redundancy. The girder is like a continuous beam
elastically supported at the points of cable attachments and supported on rollers at the towers. If
the non-linearity due to factors such as large deflection, catenary action of cables, and beam-
column interaction of the girder and tower elements are neglected, the structure can be assumed
to be linearly elastic” (Agarwal, 1997). Cable-stayed bridges have been found to be economical
in the range from 750 ft to 1500 ft, where normal girder bridges become too heavy and
suspension bridges too short to be competitive. With increase in span of cable-stayed bridges, the
overall structure turns light-weight and slender, with more sensitivity to lateral loads.
2.2 Static Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges
Extensive research has been done in the static analysis of cable stayed bridges, for their most
suitable forms with changes to different parameters. A-shaped pylon has been shown to provide
increased stiffness and stability to the overall structure. Although harp cable arrangement has
been investigated to be statically less stable and uneconomical; its use in present day can be
attributed to its pleasant aesthetical appearance. Fan cable arrangement has been found to be
most economical and stable with lesser axial compressive force in the deck. The total weight of
steel in stay cables is considerably less than the steel required in other members. The structural
response changes with change in stay spacing. With increase in number of cables, maximum
tension in cable decreases, but it affects the buckling behavior of the bridge. The fundamental
critical load of the bridge is also affected by the number of cables (Wang, 1999). If cable spacing
10
is reduced by increasing the number of cables, then the live load moment in deck increases.
However if cable spacing is increased, dead load moment increases with no significant effect on
live load moments (George, 1999). For cable-stayed bridges with concrete decks, the most
economical solution having minimum longitudinal moment is always the one having maximum
number of cables. On the other hand, if a light steel or composite deck is chosen then for
minimum longitudinal moments, more number of stays is not the best design solution. For static
and dynamic stability, box girder has been found to be the most advantageous. Because of its
slenderness, cable-stayed girder bridges with open plate girder cross section are very sensitive to
winds, especially in erection stages when the main span simulates a cantilever and some cables
are still ineffective.
2.3 Dynamic Behaviour of Cable Stayed Bridges
Although cable-stayed bridges are stable in static analysis, due to its slenderness and light-weight
structure with increasing span, dynamic analysis is very important which too determines the
feasibility of the structure. In general, there are three types of dynamic problems – aerodynamic
stability, physiological effects and safety against earthquakes.
Aerodynamic behaviour of cable-stayed bridge determines, to a great extent, the safety of the
bridge. There are three aerodynamic phenomenon that are responsible for dynamic response of
bridge road deck – vortex shedding excitation torsional instability and buffeting by wind
turbulence. In cable-stayed bridges, vibrations due to low wind and traffic cause inconvenience
without damaging the structure and these are called physiological effects. Third and one of the
important dynamic phenomenon is earthquakes. Safety against all the above mentioned dynamic
effects determines the total feasibility of the project.
2.4. Non-Linear Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges Although the behavior of structural material used in cable-stayed bridges is linearly elastic, the
overall load displacement relationship for the structure is non-linear under normal design loads.
This non-linear behavior is a result of the non-linear axial force deformation relationships for the
inclined cables due to the sag caused by their own dead weight; the non-linear axial and bending
11
force deformation relationship for the bending members which occurs due to the interaction of
large bending and axial deformations in the members; and the large displacements which occur
in the structure under normal design loads. All these effects are due to changes in geometry of
the structure as it deforms (Fleming, 1980).
After applying both linear and nonlinear procedures for a wide variety of bridge geometries, it
has been found (Fleming, 1980) that linear dynamic response, using the stiffness of the structure
at the dead load deformed state, considering the nonlinear behavior of the structure during the
application of static load and nonlinear dynamic response, considering the non-linear behavior of
the structure during the application of the dead load, demonstrate almost the same dynamic
behavior throughout the time loading. Damping can have significant effect upon the response of
the structure and should be considered, at least initially during the analysis.
2.5. Seismic Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges Ghaffar (1991) has given general guidelines for seismic analysis and design of cable stayed
bridges. He has given different procedures to estimate earthquake loads considering both
simplified and elaborate dynamic analysis.
From studies it has been found that, the input ground motion, whether it is uniform or non
uniform should satisfy the following criteria:
1. Three or more sets of appropriate ground motion time histories should be used; they
should contain at least 20 seconds of strong ground shaking or have a strong shaking
duration of 6 times the fundamental period of the bridge, whichever is greater.
2. The ordinates of the input ground spectra should not be less than 90 percent of the design
spectrum over the range of the first five periods of vibration of the bridge in direction
being considered.
Because of hybrid structural system and the flexible, extended in plane configuration as well as
three dimensionality of cable stayed bridges, earthquake excitations especially to non uniform
motions, may introduce special features into the bridge response due to complicated interaction
12
between the three dimensional input motion and the whole structure. Three dimensionality and
modal coupling cannot be captured in any two dimensional dynamic analysis. Therefore for
proper representation and more accuracy, response of dynamic loading has to be obtained. T get
the maximum response of the required quantities for dynamic loading minimum six modes has to
be taken into consideration for displacement results, whereas practically 10 modes are required
to calculate bending moments correctly. Generally both symmetric and anti symmetric modes
contribute to the overall response of the structure, but contribution from symmetric modes are
more than those of anti symmetric modes. Angle of incidence of ground motion has considerable
effect on the response and depends upon both the nature of correlation function and the ratio
between the three components of ground motion. The response of the bride is also influenced by
tower deck inertia ratio, (Allam, Datta, 1998). With increase in tower-deck inertia ratio, both
displacement and bending moment responses decrease in outer span, whereas there is no
significant change in the inner span.
2.6 Need of Study
From the thorough review of literature, it has been found that although considerable amount of
work has been done on seismic performance of cable-stayed bridges, still few areas have not
been paid adequate attention. These are:
Main research works have been concentrated on 2-pylon with equal side spans, although
a large number of cable-stayed bridges are with two span single pylon.
Characterization of bridges under static and dynamic loads with variation in span length,
pylon height and pylon shape.
Structural response of bridges subjected to various types of seismic loading.
2.7 Scope of Work
In this study, the following works have been conducted:
Verification of the standard software - SAP2000 for analysis of cable stayed bridges
13
Comparison of 2D and 3D model for static analysis using SAP2000
Study of 3D computer model using SAP2000 for A and H shaped pylon for spans of
100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m and 500m.
Comparison of static analysis results for different configuration of bridges - their
mode shapes, time period, frequency, pylon top deflection, maximum deck deflection;
and longitudinal reaction, lateral reaction and longitudinal moment at pylon bottom.
Comparison of time history analysis results for different configuration of bridges
under the effects of 3 earthquakes response spectrum (Bhuj, El Centro and Utarkashi)
- their stress diagrams, axial forces in stay cables and deck deflection at maximum
peak ground acceleration of the above mentioned earthquakes.
14
3. VALIDATION STUDY AND COMPARISON OF 2D AND 3D ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
In order to test and validate the analysis results obtained in this work, two dimensional and three
dimensional models of cable-stayed bridges have been considered in this chapter. Sectional
dimensions of the bridge elements and other parameters have been taken from the PhD work of
Nazmy and Sadek (1987). After analyzing the above models in SAP2000, the mode shapes and
their corresponding time periods have been compared with the results given in the above
mentioned work. Furthermore, time periods of 2D and 3D models have also been compared.
3.2 The 2-Dimensional Model
This model is very much the same as that used by Nazmy. The configuration of the towers and
cables lie in a single plane at the centre of the deck. The cables have a harp-type configuration.
The bridge has a centre span of 335.28 m (1100 feet) and two side spans of 137.16 m (450 feet)
each. The pylon height above deck level is 60.96 m (200 feet) and below deck level is 15.24 m
(50 feet). The towers are assumed to be fixed to the piers and rigidly connected to the deck girder
at the deck level. The deck girder is simply supported at the end abutments. Figure 3.1 shows the
general configuration of this cable-stayed bridge model. Table 3.1 shows the member properties
of this bridge model.
Section A (m2) I (m4) E (kN/m2)
Girder (steel) 0.319 1.131 1.655E+08
Towers (steel) 0.312 0.623 1.655E+08
Cables
Cable No. A (m2) E (kN/m2)
15, 54, 70, 64 0.042 1.655E+08
45, 55, 71, 65 0.016 1.655E+08
46, 56, 72, 66 0.016 1.655E+08
Table 3.1 Sectional dimensions of the 2D model
15
Fig. 3.1 Layout of 2D Model
3.3 The 3-Dimensional Model
The 3D model has similar sections as that of the 2D bridge model. The pylon is A-shaped (as
shown in Figure 3.2) and the cable arrangement is harp type. The bridge has the same centre
span of 335.28 m (1100 feet) and two side spans of 137.16 m (450 feet) each. The pylon height
above deck level is 60.96 m (200 feet) and below deck level is 15.24 m (50 feet). A horizontal
beam has been provided in the pylon at the deck level. The towers are assumed to be fixed to the
piers and rigidly connected to the deck girder at the deck level. The deck girder is simply
supported at the end abutments. Figure 3.3 shows the general configuration of this cable-stayed
bridge model. Table 3.2 shows the member properties of this bridge model. Figure 3.5 shows the
static deformation of the model under dead load. This deformed shape is based on the non-linear
analysis approach with P-Delta geometric non-linearity parameters.
Fig. 3.2 Pylon Layout (All dimensions in m)
16
Fig. 3.3 Layout of 3D Model
Table 3.2 Sectional dimensions of the 3D model
Section A (m2) I (m4) E (kN/m2)
Girder (steel) 0.319 1.131 1.655E+08
Towers (steel) 0.312 0.623 1.655E+08
Horizontal Beam (steel) 0.139 0.170 1.655E+08
Cables
Cable No. A (m2) E (kN/m2)
15, 54, 70, 64,15’,54’,
70’, 64’ 0.042 1.655E+08
45, 55, 71, 65 45’, 55’,
71’, 65’ 0.016 1.655E+08
46, 56, 72, 66 46’, 56’,
72’, 66’ 0.016 1.655E+08
15
15’ 54, 54’
70
70’
64, 64’
45
45’
55
71 65, 65’
55’ 71’
46 56, 56’
72, 72’ 66, 66’
46’
17
3.4 Analysis Results
The mode shapes obtained from the 2D bridge model are shown in table 3.3 and those of the 3D
are shown in table 3.4. Time periods of the corresponding mode shapes are also shown in the
respective tables. A comparison of the time periods obtained from the analysis results of the 2D
model and those obtained by Nazmy (1987) have been shown in table 3.5. Figure 3.4 shows the
static deformation of the 2D model under dead load and Figure 3.5 shows the static deformation
of the 3D model under same dead load. These deformed shapes are based on the non-linear
analysis approach with P-Delta geometric non-linearity parameters.
Fig. 3.4 Deflection of 2D Model
Fig.3.5 Deflection of 3D Model
18
Table 3.3 First 10 mode shapes of the 2D mode
Mode Number Mode Shape (2D Model) Time Period (sec)
1
3.0126
2
2.1246
3
1.4692
4
1.3331
5
1.0265
6
0.7997
7
0.5569
8
0.5288
9
0.5121
10
0.4919
19
Table 3.4 First 10 mode shapes of the 3D model
Mode Number Mode Shape (3D Model) Time Period (sec)
1
2.8842
2
2.0286
3
1.4055
4
1.2676
5
0.9729
6
0.7642
7
0.5281
8
0.5298
9
0.4867
10
0.4692
20
Mode Time Period (sec)
Time Period
(sec) % Variation of
2D with 2D
(Nazmy)
% Variation of
2D with 3D
Model Number 2D model 3D model 2D (Nazmy)
1 3.0126 2.8842 3.0795 2.172 4.261
2 2.1246 2.0286 2.1851 2.769 4.517
3 1.4692 1.4055 1.5071 2.514 4.332
4 1.3331 1.2676 1.3633 2.217 4.916
5 1.0265 0.9729 1.0562 2.811 5.212
6 0.7997 0.7642 0.8258 3.163 4.443
7 0.5569 0.5281 0.5695 2.215 5.171
8 0.5528 0.5251 0.5694 2.919 5.011
9 0.5121 0.4687 0.5292 3.221 4.927
10 0.4919 0.4658 0.5054 2.667 5.305
Table 3.5 Comparison of time periods of the 2D and 3D models 3.5 Validation: The 2D model when compared with the 2D model of Nazmy, the % variation in time period
comes out to be within the tolerable limits of 2.172 to 3.22. Also, the maximum % variation of
the 2D and 3D models’ time period comes out to be 5.305 with minimum variation at 4.261
which is well acceptable for the purpose of validating our analysis results.
21
4. MODELING OF CABLE STAYED BRIDGES
4.1 Introduction
In this study, the effect of span length,
pylon height and pylon shape on the behaviour of
cable-stayed bridges have been investigated. The study was carried out for two-inclined plane
system and two-vertical plane system bridges i.e. for both A-shaped pylon and H-shaped
pylon. Span lengths of 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m and 500 m with pylon heights of span/2,
span/3 and span/4 have been considered. The deck is designed as concrete section with steel
truss as girder section. The models have been analysed for dead load (static) as well as
dynamic loads under the effect of load time histories of Bhuj, El Centro and Uttarkashi
earthquakes.
Fig. 4.1 Schematic diagram representing various sections of the bridge model
22
4.2 Material Properties
4.2.1 Concrete
� Grade: M 45
� Modulus of elasticity: 33541020 kN/m2
� Poisson’s ratio: 0.2
� Coefficient of thermal expansion: 1.170E-05 /0C
� Shear modulus: 12900392 kN/m2
4.2.2 Steel
� Modulus of elasticity: 1.999E+08
� Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
� Coefficient of thermal expansion: 1.170E-05 /0C
� Shear modulus: 76903069 kN/m2
4.2.3 Steel Tendon (for cable)
� Modulus of elasticity: 1.580E+08
� Poisson’s ratio: 0.3
� Coefficient of thermal expansion: 1.170E-05 /0C
� Shear modulus: 60769231 kN/m2
4.3 Modelling of Deck
� Element: Shell – Thin
� Grade of concrete: M 45
� Thickness: Membrane: 0.3 m
Bending: 0.3 m
4.4 Modelling of Girder
The steel truss girder comprises of horizontal beams, edge beams, internal brace and external
brace (Fig. 4.1).
23
4.4.1 Horizontal Beam
� Material: M 45 concrete
� Section: Rectangular
� Outside depth: 6.7 m
� Outside width: 5.448 m
� Flange thickness: 2.232 m
� Web thickness: 1.82 m
4.4.2 Edge Beam
� Material: Steel
� Section: I
� Outside height: 1.0 m
� Top flange width: 0.5 m
� Top flange thickness: 0.025 m
� Web thickness: 0.05 m
� Bottom flange width: 0.5 m
� Bottom flange thickness: 0.025 m
4.4.3 External Brace
• Material: Steel
• Section: Circular
• Outside diameter: 0.3 m
• Wall thickness: 3.0E-03
4.4.4 Internal Brace
• Material: Steel
• Section: Circular
• Outside diameter: 0.1524 m
• Wall thickness: 6.0E-03
24
4.5 Modelling of Pylon
The sub-structure pylon is a non-prismatic section which ranges from the pylon bottom
section to the pylon interior section whereas the super-structure pylon is the same non-
prismatic section ranging from the pylon interior section to the pylon top section.
4.5.1 Pylon Bottom
� Material: M 45 concrete
� Section: Box/Tube
� Outside depth: 24.21 m
� Outside width: 10.5 m
� Flange thickness: 8.07 m
� Web thickness: 3.5 m
4.5.2 Pylon Interior
� Material: M 45 concrete
� Section: Box/Tube
� Outside depth: 18.72 m
� Outside width: 5.48 m
� Flange thickness: 6.24 m
� Web thickness: 1.82 m
4.5.3 Pylon Top
� Material: M 45 concrete
� Section: Box/Tube
� Outside depth: 15.24 m
� Outside width: 5.48 m
� Flange thickness: 5.08 m
� Web thickness: 1.82 m
4.6 Cable Section
� Material: Steel tendon (for cable)
� Diameter: 0.2 m
25
4.7 Support Conditions:
� Deck supports: Hinge restraints at one end and roller restraints on the other end
� Pylon Base: Fixed restraints
� Link between deck and horizontal beam: Dampers of stiffness 3000 kN-m and
damping coefficient of 5000.
Fig. 4.2 The 3D CSB model in SAP 2000
4.8 Time History Analysis
Time history analysis can be defined as the study of the behavior of a structure as a response
to acceleration, velocity or displacement of the structure during a given period of vibration. It
is basically the study of the seismic response of a structure and the analysis can be linear as
well as non-linear. The response of the structure can be plotted by three graphs:
� Pseudo-acceleration spectrum (for peak value of equivalent static force and base
shear);
� Pseudo-velocity spectrum (for peak value of equivalent strain energy stored); and
� Pseudo-displacement spectrum (for peak deformation).
26
A response spectrum is simply a plot of the peak or steady-state response (displacement,
velocity or acceleration) of oscillator(s) of varying natural frequency that are forced into
motion by the same base vibration or shock.
4.9 Time History Functions Used:
Three load time histories with different characteristics have been used in the currently
analysis, namely – past earthquakes at Bhuj, El Centro and Uttarkashi.
4.9.1 The Bhuj Earthquake
� Location: Kachchh Peninsula
� Year: 26th
Jan, 2001
� Magnitude: 7.6 (on Richter scale)
� Duration: 109.97 sec
� Excitation type: Long
� Number of steps: 26706
� Step size: 0.0005
� Time history type: Modal
� Occurrence of maximum acceleration: 46.622 sec
4.9.2 The El Centro Earthquake
� Location: Southern California
� Year: 18th May, 1940
� Magnitude: 6.7 (on Richter scale)
� Duration: 31.1 sec
� Excitation type: Medium
� Number of steps: 2674
� Step size: 0.02
� Time history type: Modal
� Occurrence of maximum acceleration: 11.472 sec
Peak Ground Acceleration vs Time (Bhuj)
Peak Ground Acceleration vs Time (El Centro)
27
4.9.3 The Uttarkashi Earthquake
� Location: Tehri Region, Himalaya
� Year: 20th Oct, 1991
� Magnitude: 6.6 (on Richter scale)
� Duration: 6.22 sec
� Excitation type: Short
� Number of steps: 1996
� Step size: 0.02
� Time history type: Modal
� Occurrence of maximum acceleration: 1.481 sec
Peak Ground Acceleration vs Time (Uttarkashi)
28
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
To understand the static non-linear behaviour of cable-stayed bridges, the bridge models have
been subjected to dead load and modal load combinations and their responses studied. The
parameters studied are - time period and natural frequency of different mode shapes;
maximum pylon top deflection and maximum deck deflection; longitudinal and lateral
reaction at pylon bottom and longitudinal moment at pylon bottom for spans of 100 m to 500
m with varying pylon height and pylon shape. Similarly, dynamic behaviour has been
investigated by applying load time histories of Bhuj (2006), Uttarkashi (1991) and Elcentro
(1940) to the above models. The parameters observed in this case are - maximum deck
deflection, shell stresses at deck and maximum axial forces in cables.
5.2 Non-Linear Static Analysis
To be static, is to be simply constant with time. Thus, a static load is any load whose
magnitude, direction, and/or position does not vary with time. Similarly, the structural
response to a static load, i.e. the resulting stresses and deflections are also static. Non-
linearity in a structure refers to the changing of the stiffness co-efficient with change in load
conditions. Even though the material properties of the cable-stayed bridge behave in a
linearly elastic manner, the overall load-displacement relationship for the structure is non-
linear under normal design static loads. Although the loads do not vary with time but
different loads induce different stiffness in the structure, which leads to a more complex
analysis - the non-linear static analysis.
The time periods, natural frequencies, deformed configurations and bending moments of the
cable-stayed bridge models obtained by the non-linear static analysis are shown below. The
above mentioned parameters are seen for H-shaped and A-shaped pylons. The spans
considered are 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m and 500 m with varying pylon heights of span/2,
span/3 and span/4.
29
5.2.1 Time Period vs Mode Number Graphs for A and H Pylon Models
Fig. 5.1 Time Period vs Mode Number Graphs for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
From the above graphs we can clearly deduce that time period of vibration of cable-stayed
bridges (under static load) increases with increase in span and decreases with decrease in
height of pylon, irrespective of the mode shapes. Moreover, pylon shape does not seem to
have any significant effect on the time period.
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim
e Per
iod
(sec
)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/2
H-shaped PylonTime Period vs Mode Number
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
01234567
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim
e Pe
riod
(sec
)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/3
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m 01234567
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim
e Pe
riod
(sec
)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/3
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
01234567
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim
e Per
iod
(sec
)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/4
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m 01234567
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim
e Per
iod
(sec
)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/4
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
0
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim
e Pe
riod
(sec
)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/2
A-shaped PylonTime Period vs Mode Number
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
30
5.2.2 Frequency vs Mode Number Graphs for A and H Pylon Models
A-shaped Pylon
Frequency vs Mode Number
H-shaped Pylon
Frequency vs Mode Number
Fig. 5.2 Frequency vs Mode Number Graphs for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
The above graphs clearly depict that the frequency of vibration of cable-stayed bridges under
dead load is higher for lesser span. Although pylon shape does not have any considerable
effect on the frequency, pylon height does have – with decrease in pylon height, frequency is
seen to increase.
00.5
11.5
22.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Freq
uenc
y (c
yc/se
c)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/2
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m 00.5
11.5
22.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Freq
uenc
y (c
yc/se
c)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/2
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frea
quen
cy (c
yc/s
ec)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/3
100
200
300
400
500 00.5
11.5
22.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Freq
uenc
y (c
yc/s
ec)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/3
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Freq
uenc
y (c
yc/s
ec)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/4
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m 00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Freq
uenc
y (c
yc/se
c)
Mode NumberPylon Height = Span/4
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
31
5.2.3 Pylon Top Deflection vs Pylon Height for A and H Pylon Models
Fig. 5.3 Pylon Top Deflections for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
The above graphs show that the A-shaped pylon deflects less at its top than its corresponding
H-shaped pylon irrespective of span length. Also, it can be observed that for pylon heights of
span/2, the pylon top deflection is less in case of A-pylons and much higher in case of H-
pylons. Thus, it can be accurately inferred that A-shaped pylons have higher stiffness that its
counterpart H-shaped pylons.
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
L/4 L/3 L/2
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Pylon Height (where L = Span)
Pylon Top Deflection vs Pylon Height for A-shaped pylon
100m200m300m400m500m
00.00050.001
0.00150.002
0.00250.003
0.0035
L/4 L/3 L/2
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Pylon Height (where L = Span)
Pylon Top Deflection vs Pylon Height for H-shaped pylon
100m200m300m400m500m
32
5.2.4 Deck Deflection vs Pylon Height for A and H Pylon Models
Fig. 5.4 Maximum Deck Deflections for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
From the above graphs, it can be noticed that the maximum deflection of deck increases with
increase in the span which is quite obvious otherwise also. Moreover, pylon shape and pylon
height seem to have not much effect on the maximum deck deflection although variations are
observed in deflection values of the models with pylon height of span/2. In addition, the 500
m model with pylon of span/2 height seems to have much lower deck deflection values
irrespective of the shape of pylon, when compared to the other models.
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
L/4 L/3 L/2
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Pylon Height (where L = Span)
Maximum Deck Deflection vs Pylon Height for A-shaped pylon
100m200m300m400m500m
-0.10.10.30.50.70.91.11.31.5
L/4 L/3 L/2
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Pylon Height (where L = Span)
Maximum Deck Deflection vs Pylon Height for H-shaped pylon
100m200m300m400m500m
33
5.2.5 Longitudinal Reaction Forces at Pylon Bottom for A and H Pylon Models
Fig. 5.5 Longitudinal Reaction at Pylon Bottom for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
These graphs indicate that differing heights of pylon do not have any significant effect on the
magnitude of forces (in longitudinal direction) at the pylon base although pylon shape does
have an immense effect. The forces in case of A-shaped pylons are considerably higher when
compared to the same forces in H-shaped pylons. In addition, the magnitude of these forces
increases with increasing span in case of A pylons and vice-versa for H pylons. Also, it can
be seen that for both legs of the pylon structure i.e. P1 and P2, the force magnitudes are one
and the same.
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m
Forc
e (k
N)
Span (m)
Longitudinal Reaction at Pylon Bottom (A-Pylon)
L/4 P1
L/4 P2
L/3 P1
L/3 P2
L/2 P1
L/2 P2
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m
Forc
e (k
N)
Span (m)
Longitudinal Reaction at Pylon Bottom (H-Pylon)
L/4 P1
L/4 P2
L/3 P1
L/3 P2
L/2 P1
L/2 P2
34
5.2.6 Lateral Reaction Forces at Pylon Bottom for A and H Pylon Models
Fig. 5.6 Lateral Reaction at Pylon Bottom for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
From the above graphs, it can be seen that the magnitude of forces (in lateral direction) at the
pylon base decreases as span length increases although there is no substantial effect of the
pylon shape on the magnitude. In addition, the force magnitudes increase with decreasing
pylon height. Furthermore, the magnitudes are different at the two legs of the pylon (i.e. at P1
and P2) unlike in the case of longitudinal forces seen previously.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m
Forc
e (k
N)
Span (m)
Lateral Reaction at Pylon Bottom (A-Pylon)
L/4 P1
L/4 P2
L/3 P1
L/3 P2
L/2 P1
L/2 P2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m
Forc
e (k
N)
Span (m)
Lateral Reaction at Pylon Bottom (H-Pylon)
L/4 P1
L/4 P2
L/3 P1
L/3 P2
L/2 P1
L/2 P2
35
5.2.7 Longitudinal Moment at Pylon Bottom for A and H Pylon Models
Fig. 5.7 Longitudinal Moment at Pylon Bottom for A and H-shaped Pylon Models
The increase in longitudinal moment is almost linear with increasing span of the bridge in
case of H-shaped pylon but models with A-shaped pylon show an erratic increase in
longitudinal moment. It can also be observed that neither the height of pylon nor the pylon
legs have much influence on the longitudinal moment values in case of H pylons. On the
other hand, moment values for A-shaped pylons vary with both the pylon height as well as
the pylon leg of the structure. In general, longitudinal moment is seen to increase with
decreasing pylon height.
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m
Mom
ent (
kN-m
)
Span (m)
Longitudinal Moment at Pylon Bottom (A-Pylon)
L/4 P1
L/4 P2
L/3 P1
L/3 P2
L/2 P1
L/2 P2
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
100m 200m 300m 400m 500m
Mom
ent (
kN-m
)
Span (m)
Longitudianl Moment at Pylon Bottom (H-Pylon)
L/4 P1
L/4 P2
L/3 P1
L/3 P2
L/2 P1
L/2 P2
36
5.3 Non Linear Dynamic (Time History) Analysis
Dynamic may be defined simply as time-varying; thus a dynamic load is any load whose
magnitude, direction, and/or position varies this time. Similarly, the structural response to a
dynamic load, i.e. the resulting stresses and deflections, is also time-varying, or dynamic.
Static-loading condition may be looked upon as a special form of dynamic loading. Dynamic
analysis is basically divided into two approaches for evaluating structural response to
dynamic loads: deterministic and non-deterministic.
A structural-dynamic problem differs from its static-loading counterpart in its time- varying
nature of the dynamic problem. Because both loading and response vary with time, it is
evident therefore that a dynamic problem does not have a single solution, as a static problem
does; instead a succession of solutions corresponding to all times of interest must be
established. Thus a dynamic analysis is clearly more complex and time consuming than a
static analysis. Although if the motions are so slow that the inertial forces are negligibly
small, the analysis of response for any desired instant of time may be made by static
structural analysis procedures even though the load and response may be time varying.
The models were subjected to different load time histories and their maximum deck
deflections, cable forces and deck stresses have been plotted for the bridges with A and H-
shaped pylons. The load time histories used were of Bhuj, El Centro and Uttarkashi. The
pylon heights used are the same as in the static analysis.
5.3.1 Maximum Deck Deflection for A and H Pylon Models
The response has been plotted with zero end at the hinge supports and the 500 m end at the
roller supports of the girder. From the following graphs, it can be ascertained that irrespective
of pylon shape, the deck deflection is minimum at the mid-span for all the three earthquakes.
This can be explained by the presence of dampers connecting the bridge deck and the
horizontal beam of the pylon structure. The maximum values of deck deflection are seen at
the middle section of the side spans but deflection values are slightly different for A and H
pylons depending on the load time history applied. However, the maximum and minimum
deck deflection is observed to be under Uttarkashi earthquake and Bhuj earthquake
respectively, in both A-shaped and H-shaped pylon models.
37
Fig. 5.8 Maximum Deck Deflection for A-Pylon Models under Different Load Time Histories
0.00E+002.00E-024.00E-026.00E-028.00E-021.00E-011.20E-011.40E-011.60E-011.80E-012.00E-01
0 100 200 300 400 500
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Distance (m)
Maximum Deflection of Deck (A-Pylon): Bhuj
Span/2Span/3Span/4
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
7.00E-02
0 100 200 300 400 500
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Distance (m)
Maximum Deflection of Deck (A-Pylon): El Centro
Span/2Span/3Span/4
0.00E+001.00E-032.00E-033.00E-034.00E-035.00E-036.00E-037.00E-038.00E-039.00E-03
0 100 200 300 400 500
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Distance (m)
Maximum Deflection of Deck (A-Pylon): Uttarkashi
Span/2Span/3Span/4
38
Fig. 5.9 Maximum Deck Deflection for H-Pylon Models under Different Load Time Histories
0.00E+002.00E-024.00E-026.00E-028.00E-021.00E-011.20E-011.40E-011.60E-011.80E-012.00E-01
0 100 200 300 400 500
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Distance (m)
Maximum Deflection of Deck (H-Pylon): Bhuj
Span/2Span/3Span/4
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
0 100 200 300 400 500
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Distance (m)
Maximum Deflection of Deck (H-Pylon): El Centro
Span/2Span/3Span/4
0.00E+00
1.00E-03
2.00E-03
3.00E-03
4.00E-03
5.00E-03
6.00E-03
7.00E-03
8.00E-03
0 100 200 300 400 500
Def
lect
ion
(m)
Distance (m)
Maximum Deflection of Deck (H-Pylon): Uttarkashi
Span/2Span/3Span/4
39
5.3.2 Axial Forces in Cables for A and H Pylon Models
The models were also checked for axial forces present in the stay cables. The response has
been plotted with the outermost cable at the roller support end of the girder numbered one
and subsequently increasing as we move towards the hinged end. The total number of cables
in one plane is 36 with equal spacing of 12.5 m throughout the length of the deck.
Fig. 5.10 Axial Forces in Cables for A-Pylon Models under Different Load Time Histories
Cables 18 and 19 which are the ones closest to the pylon and of the shortest length are having
minimum axial force (tensile in nature). This is irrespective of the shape of the pylon. Plane 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Axi
al F
orce
(KN
)
Cable Position (Nos.)
Axial Force in Cables (A-Pylon): Bhuj
Span/2 plane1
Span/2 plane2Span/3 plane1Span/3 plane2
Span/4 plane1Span/4 plane2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Axi
al F
orce
(kN
)
Cable Position (Nos.)
Axial Force in Cables (A-Pylon): El Centro
Span/2 plane1Span/2 plane2Span/3 plane1Span/3 plane2Span/4 plane1Span/4 plane2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Axi
al F
orce
(kN
)
Cable Position (Nos.)
Axial Force in Cables (A-Pylon): Uttarkashi
Span/2 plane1
Span/2 plane2
Span/3 plane1
Span/3 plane2
Span/4 plane1
Span/4 plane2
40
and 2 which refers to the two different planes of the cable-stayed bridge model, too, does not
seem to influence the magnitude of axial forces in the cables. It can also be seen that the axial
forces in the cables are least under the Uttarkashi load time history and this applies to models
with both A and H-shaped pylons. Whereas magnitude of forces under Uttarkashi load case
are within 100 kN, the same forces in the other two cases ranges from 250 kN to 2000 kN.
Although pylon height seems not to influence the cable axial forces in A-shaped pylon
models, deviations can be observed in the H-shaped ones.
Fig. 5.11 Axial Forces in Cables for H-Pylon Models under Different Load Time Histories
0.00E+00
5.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.50E+03
2.00E+03
0 10 20 30 40
Axi
al F
orce
(KN
)
Cable Position (Nos.)
Axial Force in Cables (H-Pylon): Bhuj
Span/2 plane1
Span/2 plane2
Span/3 plane1
Span/3 plane2
Span/4 plane1
Span/4 plane2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Axi
al F
orce
(kN
)
Cable Position (Nos.)
Axial Force in Cables (H-Pylon): El Centro
Span/2 plane1
Span/2 plane2
Span/3 plane1
Span/3 plane2
Span/4 plane1
Span/4 plane2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Axi
al F
orce
(kN
)
Cable Position (Nos.)
Axial Force in Cables (H-Pylon): Uttarkashi
Span/2 plane1Span/2 plane2Span/3 plane1Span/3 plane2Span/4 plane1Span/4 plane2
41
5.3.3 Shell Stresses at Deck for A and H Pylon Models
The deck has been checked for both compressive and tensile stresses developing under the
effect of all the three load time histories at peak ground acceleration (PGA). The occurrence
of PGA for the Bhuj, El Centro and Uttarkashi earthquake are 46.622 sec, 11.472 sec and
1.481 sec respectively. The left end of the stress diagrams refers to the roller end of the
bridge deck and the right end to the hinged support end.
From the graphs (Fig. 5.12 – Fig. 5.14) of shell stresses at deck, it can be observed that the
maximum values are under load time histories of the Bhuj earthquake. The maximum stress
values in case of A-pylon models are:
Span/2 = 1.7 - 2.5 MPa Span/3 = 4.0 - 5.0 MPa Span/4 = 3.6 - 4.5 MPa
A-shaped Pylons:
Fig. 5.12 Deck Stresses for A-shaped pylon of Height = Span/2
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): Bhuj
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): El Centro
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): Uttarkashi
42
Fig. 5.13 Deck Stresses for A-shaped pylon of Height = Span/3
Fig. 5.14 Deck Stresses for A-shaped pylon of Height = Span/4
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): Bhuj
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): El Centro
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): Uttarkashi
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): Bhuj
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): El Centro
Shell Stresses at Deck (A-Pylon): Uttarkashi
43
H-shaped Pylons:
Fig. 5.15 Deck Stresses for H-shaped pylon of Height = Span/2
Fig. 5.16 Deck Stresses for H-shaped pylon of Height = Span/3
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): Bhuj
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): El Centro
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): Uttarkashi
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): Bhuj
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): El Centro
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): Uttarkashi
44
Fig. 5.17 Deck Stresses for H-shaped pylon of Height = Span/4
From the graphs (Fig. 5.15 – Fig. 5.17) of shell stresses at deck, it can be observed that the
maximum values are under load time histories of the Bhuj earthquake. The maximum stress
values in case of H-pylon models are:
Span/2 = 2.1 - 2.9 MPa Span/3 = 3.7 - 5.2 MPa Span/4 = 3.3 - 4.5 MPa
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): Bhuj
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): El Centro
Shell Stresses at Deck (H-Pylon): Uttarkashi
45
6. CONCLUSION:
Looking to the increased popularity of cable-stayed bridges, it is obvious that there is a need
for more comprehensive investigations of analysis and design of these contemporary bridges.
In order to have a proper understanding of the seismic behaviour of these bridges, 3-D
earthquake analysis has been performed considering a variety of time histories like short,
medium and long duration having different PGA value and different earthquake magnitudes.
Vertical excitation which is usually ignored in the seismic analysis of buildings,
drastically affects the response of cable-stayed bridges, and hence the first ten major
contributory modes were studied so as to obtain the most fundamental movements. Three
dimensional models have been used to realistically model the complex geometry and
configuration of towers and also to represent the actual dynamic behaviour of the bridge for
seismic analysis.
The conclusions drawn from the present study are:
Cable-stayed bridges are highly non-linear structures under the effect of their own
dead weight, where the structure stiffness increases with increasing load.
As the span of the bridge increases, time period increases i.e. natural frequency
decreases because of decrease in stiffness of the bridges.
A-shaped pylons have more stiffness under static loads as ascertained from their low
deflection values when compared to H-shaped pylons.
Deflection of deck under static loads is influenced by pylon shape as well as pylon
height as shown by results.
Under dead load conditions, longitudinal forces and longitudinal moments at the
pylon base reach upper limits of 95 MN and 600 MN-m respectively in select cases.
Cables of different lengths with different natural frequencies experience varying axial
forces depending upon their relative positions.
Shell stresses developing at the deck due to varying load time histories are both
tensile and compressive in nature, but are within acceptable limits.
46
7. REFERENCES
Books:
1. Clough, R., Penzien, J.,”Dynamics of Structures”, Second Edition, Mc Graw-Hill
International Editions, Civil Engineering Series.
2. Troitsky, M.S., “Cable Stayed Bridges: Theory and Design”, Crosby Lockwood Staples, London, 1977.
Journal Articles:
1. Adeli, H., Zhang, J., “Fully Nonlinear Analysis of Composite Girder Cable-Stayed
Bridges”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 54. No.2. pp. 267-277, 1995.
2. Allam, S.M, Datta, T.K., “Seismic Behaviour of Cable-Stayed Bridges Under Multi-
Component Random Ground Motion”, Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi, India.
3. Chen, S.S. , Bingnan, S. , Feng, Y.Q. ,” Nonlinear Transient Response of Stay Cable
With Viscoelasticity Damper in Cable-Stayed Bridge”, Applied Mathematics and
Mechanics, English Edition, Vol. 25, No 6, Jun 2004.
4. Ghaffar, A., Nazmy, A.S. “Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Static Analysis of Cable-
Stayed Bridges”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 34, No. 2. pp. 257-271, 1990.
5. Freire, A.M.S., Lopes, A.V., Negrao, J.H.O.,” Geometrical Nonlinearities on the
Static Analysis of Highly Flexible Steel Cable-Stayed Bridges”, Computers and
Structures 84, pp. 2128–2140, 2006.
6. Fleming, J.F., “Nonlinear Static Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridge Structures”,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 11, pp. 621-635, 1979.
7. Kanok-Nukulchai, W., Hong, G., “Nonlinear Modelling of Cable-Stayed Bridges”, J.
Construct. Steel Research, Vol.26, pp. 249-266, 1993.
8. Nazmy, A.S., “Nonlinear Earthquake response Analysis of Cable Stayed Bridges
subjected to multiple support excitations”, University Microfilms International
Journal, Princeton University, 1987.
9. Tuladhar, R., Dilger,W.H., ”Effect Of Support Conditions on Seismic Response of
Cable-Stayed Bridges”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.26, pp. 631-645,
1999.
47
10. Ganev, T., Yamazaki, F., Ishizaki, H., Kitazawa, M., “Response Analysis of the
Higashikobe Bridge and Surrounding Soil In The 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
Earthquake”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics Vol.27, pp. 557-576,
1998.
11. Ren, W.X., Peng, X.L., Lina, Y.Q.,” Experimental and Analytical Studies on
Dynamic Characteristics of a Large Span Cable-Stayed Bridge”, Engineering
Structures, Vol.27, pp. 535-548, 2005.
12. Agarwal, T.P., “Cable Stayed Bridges- Parametric Study”, Journal of bridge
engineering, pp. 61-67, May 1997.
13. Fleming, J., Egeseli E., “Dynamic Behaviour of Cable Stayed Bridge”, Earthquake
Engineering and structural dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 1-16, 1980.
14. Wang, P., Yang, C., “Parametric Studies on Cable Stayed Bridges”, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 60 , pp. 243-260, 1996
15. George, H., “Influence of Deck Material on Cable Stayed Bridges to Live Loads”,
Journal of bridge engineering, pp. 136-142, May 1999.
Websites:
1. “List of Largest Cable Stayed Bridges”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cable-stayed_bridges, Accessed Sep. 18,
2009)
2. “Basic Concepts of Cable Stayed Bridges”
(http://www.stbridge.com.cn/English/, Oct. 7, 2009)
3. “Structural Details of Various Bridges”
(http://en.structurae.de/structures/stype/index.cfm?ID=1, Sep. 19, 2009)