Static and Dynamic Behavior of Extradosed Bridges - Koffi

U448.
27

Koffi TOGBENOU

Classified Index: U448.27
U.D.C:

Southwest Jiaotong University
Master Degree Thesis

STATIC AND DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR
OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES

Grade: 2009
Candidate: Koffi TOGBENOU
Academic Degree Applied for: Master Degree
Speciality: Bridge & Tunnel Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Li Yongle

May, 2013

1
2

The contributions of this research work are like follow:
- Provide clear and comprehensive summary on the design and construction of
almost all extradosed bridges constructed around the world.
- Provide useful information on the static and dynamic behavior of extradosed
bridges through a careful parametric study and taking into account the most im-
portant design parameters of extradosed bridges including tower height above
the deck, girder depth, side span length, cable arrangements and connection be-
tween members.
- Propose some criteria for extradosed bridge components sizing based on the
idea that an extradosed bridge is a girder bridge with extradosed prestressing.
- Increase the information on the static and dynamic behavior of extradosed
bridges

Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page I

33%

87
87

Jacques Mathivat
0.086 0.113 10 20

ANSYS MIDAS CIVIL

Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page II

Abstract
Extradosed bridge is one of the recent innovative bridge types and has become very
attractive in the recent years. Its design and construction have been successfully
achieved in Asia, especially in Japan where the 33% of the existing extradosed bridges
are located. But, its structural behaviors and design parameters are still not well under-
stood yet. Therefore this research work aims to investigate their static and dynamic be-
havior.
A study conducted on information collected on 87 extradosed bridges from all
around the world showed that there is no specific rule for sizing the structural compo-
nents of extradosed bridges. This is found to be caused by the lack of design codes for
the design of this new type of bridge. The statistic analysis of the information collected
on the 87 extradosed bridges provided approximate way of estimating different quant i-
ties required for the design of an extradosed bridge.
According to the existing literatures on extradosed bridge design, there are two de-
sign concepts namely the stiff girder concept and the stiff tower concept. But in this
study, a concept closed to the stiff girder concept and similar to the original idea of
Jacques Mathivat was developed. This approach defines an extradosed bridge as a gird-
er bridge with extradosed prestressing. The approach requires a tower-to-main span ra-
tio between 0.086 and 0.113, and the inclination of the extradosed cables with the gird-
er should be between 10 and 20 degrees. Also, some criteria were proposed for the pre-
liminary design of extradosed bridges
An investigation was conducted on the static and dynamic behavior of extradosed
bridges. This was the main objective of this research work. Its found that, under the
designed concept developed in this study, extradosed bridges may behave more like a
girder bridge. The parameters such as tower height, girder depth, side span length and
cable arrangement were found to have significant influence on the overall structural
behavior of the bridge.
Numerical methods using finite element analysis was widely used in this research
work based on the commercial software ANSYS and MIDAS CIVIL.
Keywords: Extradosed Prestressing, Bridge; Cable Stayed; Static Behavior; Dynamic
Behavior
Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page III

TABLE OF CONTENTS
. .............................................................................................. I
Abstract ................................................................................................................... II
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................ III
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... IX
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1 HISTORICAL REVIEW ................................................................................. 1
1.2 BASIC CONCEPT OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES ........................................ 2
1.3 EXTRADOSED BRIDGE AND LOW-TOWER CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 3
1.4 EXTRADOSED BRIDGE SYSTEM ............................................................... 5
1.4.1 Stay Cable Arrangements ....................................................................... 5
1.4.2 Cables Position in Space......................................................................... 6
1.4.3 Tower Types .......................................................................................... 7
1.5 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ........................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 STUDY OF EXISTING EXTRADOSED BRIDGES ..................... 9
2.1 CHOICE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGE TYPE ............................................. 15
2.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND DIMENSIONING ................................. 16
2.2.1 Span Length ......................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Girder Depth ........................................................................................ 18
2.2.3 Tower Height ....................................................................................... 20
2.3 RECENT APPLICATIONS OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES ......................... 20
2.3.1 Pearl Harbor Memorial Extradosed Bridge, United Stated, 2012 ........... 20
2.3.2 St. Croix Crossing Extradosed Bridge, United Stated, 2012 .................. 21
2.3.3 Kwidzyn (DK90) Extradosed Bridge, Poland, 2012 .............................. 23
CHAPTER 3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA OF EXTRADOSED
BRIDGES..24
3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT: EXTRADOSED BRIDGE AS A GIRDER BRIDGE
WITH EXTRADOSED PRESTRESSING. ................................................... 24
3.2 DESIGN CODES AND LOADS ................................................................... 25
3.2.1 Design Codes ....................................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Design Loads ....................................................................................... 26
3.3 GENERAL STRUCTURE AND COMPONENTS SIZING........................... 28
3.3.1 Choice of Main span and Side Span ...................................................... 28
Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page IV

3.3.2 Cable Spacing and Girder Segment Length ........................................... 29
3.3.3 Girder Depth ........................................................................................ 30
3.3.4 Tower Height ....................................................................................... 31
3.3.5 Cable Inclination .................................................................................. 35
3.3.6 Manual Preliminary Calculation for Extradosed Cable.......................... 37
3.3.7 Preliminary Steel consumption Estimation ........................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR ........................................................ 42
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE MODEL DESIGNED FOR ANALYSIS . 42
4.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE BRIDGE DESIGNED FOR ANALYSIS
....44
4.3 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED CABLES ........................ 45
4.3.1 Assumptions and General Cable Equations ........................................... 45
4.3.2 Cable Behavior - Catenary Approach ................................................... 46
4.3.3 Cable Behavior - Parabola Approach .................................................... 48
4.3.4 Catenary Approach versus Parabola Approach ..................................... 49
4.3.5 Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity .......................................................... 52
4.4 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGE GIRDER ......... 53
4.4.1 Girder Stiffness .................................................................................... 53
4.4.2 Dead Load Moment Distribution .......................................................... 55
4.5 TOWER ........................................................................................................ 55
4.5.1 Structural Behavior of the Pylons ......................................................... 55
4.6 CONNECTION ............................................................................................. 56
4.6.1 Connection between Cable and Girder .................................................. 56
4.6.2 Connection between Cable and Tower .................................................. 57
4.7 RESPONSE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES TO PERMANENT STATE ...... 57
4.8 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 59
4.8.1 Influence of Cable Arrangements ......................................................... 60
4.8.2 Influence of Side Span Length .............................................................. 61
4.8.3 Influence of Girder Depth ..................................................................... 61
4.8.4 Influence of Tower Height and Cable Inclination.................................. 62
4.9 STATIC BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES DURING
CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 63
4.9.1 Erection of Extradosed Bridges ............................................................ 63
CHAPTER 5 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES ........... 67
5.1 GENERAL THEORY OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ...................................... 67
5.1.1 Basic Equations of Structural Dynamics ............................................... 67
Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page V

5.1.2 Natural Frequency of Bridge ................................................................ 70
5.2 FREE VIBRATION OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES- PARAMETRIC STUDY
70
5.3 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGE TO TRAFFIC LIVE
LOADS .................................................................................................................. 75
5.4 EFFECT OF VEHICLE SPEED ON THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES .................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 6 ....CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
WORK80
6.1 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 80
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORKS ....................................... 81
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 82
Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page VI

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Odawara Blueway Bridge Elevation ................................................................................ 2
Figure 1.2: Odawara Blueway Bridge ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 1.3: Girder Bridge, Extradosed Bridge and Cable-stayed Bridge.............................................. 3
Figure 1.4: Cable Supports in Extradosed Bridge and Cable-stayed Bridge ........................................ 4
Figure 1.5: Cable Arrangements in Extradosed Bridge ....................................................................... 6
Figure 1.6: Cable Position in Space ................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1.7: Tower Types in Extradosed Bridges................................................................................. 7
Figure 1.8: Tower Heads in Extradosed Bridges ................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.1: Number of Extradosed Bridges by Country .................................................................... 14
Figure 2.2: Number of Extradosed Bridges by Continent ................................................................. 14
Figure 2.3: Number of Extradosed Bridges by Year ......................................................................... 15
Figure 2.4: Main Span Variation Worldwide.................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.5: Main Span Variation in Japan ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 2.6: Relation between Main Span and Side Span ................................................................... 18
Figure 2.7: Girder Depth ................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2.8: Girder Depth Variations ................................................................................................ 20
Figure 2.9: New Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Steven L. Stroh, 2012) .......................................... 21
Figure 2.10: St. Croix Crossing Bridge (HDI Engineering: Parsons Brinckerhoff) ............................ 22
Figure 2.11: Kwidzyn (DK90) Extradosed Bridge (Jan Biliszczuk and Wojciech Barcik, 2011) ........ 23
Figure 3.1: Chinese Lane Loads ...................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.2: JTG D60-2004 temperature gradient Figure 3.3: AASHTO temperature gradient ......... 28
Figure 3.4: Girder depth .................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.5: Cable Inclination ........................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.6: Bridge Dimension Nomenclature ................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.1: Bridge Model Details .................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2: FEM Model in Midas Civil ............................................................................................ 44
Figure 4.3: Cable curves.................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 4.4:Inclined Cable Chord ...................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.5:Typical Cable Application .............................................................................................. 51
Figure 4.6:Catenary Approach versus Parabola Approach (Cable sag by the quantity 2/kl) ............... 52
Figure 4.7: Cable Connection with the Girder (NIELS J. GIMSING, 2012) ...................................... 57
Figure 4.8: Fixed Girder VS Released Girder in terms of Deflection ................................................ 58
Figure 4.9: Bending Moment in Structure A under Permanent State (KN*m) ................................... 58
Figure 4.10: Bending Moment in Structure B under Permanent State (KN*m).................................. 59
Figure 4.11: Axial Force in the Structure A (KN) ............................................................................ 59
Figure 4.12: Axial Force in the Structure B (KN) ............................................................................. 59
Figure 4.13: Fan System VS Semi-Fan System in terms of Deflection .............................................. 60
Figure 4.14: Effect of Side Span Length Girder Deflection .............................................................. 61
Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page VII

Figure 4.15: Effect of Girder depth on the Girder dead load Moment Distribution ............................ 62
Figure 4.16: Effect of Tower Height on the Girder Axial Loads ....................................................... 62
Figure 4.17: Stages in Free Cantilever Method (Marko Justus Grabow, 2004) .................................. 63
Figure 4.18: Construction stage cycle (from Midas) ......................................................................... 64
Figure 4.19: Moment Diagram at Stage 3 ........................................................................................ 65
Figure 4.20: Moment Diagram at Stage 4 ........................................................................................ 65
Figure 4.21: Moment Diagram at Stage 11....................................................................................... 65
Figure 4.22: Moment Diagram at Stage 18....................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.23: Moment Diagram at Key Segments Closure ................................................................. 66
Figure 5.1: Undamped Free Vibration Motion (ICE, 2008) .............................................................. 68
Figure 5.2: Damped Free Vibration Motion (ICE, 2008) .................................................................. 69
Figure 5.3: Vibration Motion for Various Damping Ratios (Bavirisetty, 2000) ................................. 69
Figure 5.4: First Mode Shape .......................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.5: Second Mode Shape ...................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.6: Third Mode Shape ......................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.7: Fourth Mode Shape ....................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.8: Fifth Mode Shape .......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.9: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Tower Heights ............................................... 73
Figure 5.10: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Side Span-to-Main Span Ratios .................... 74
Figure 5.11: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Girder Depths .............................................. 74
Figure 5.12: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Cable Arrangement Systems ........................ 75
Figure 5.13: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Girder-to-Pier Connections .......................... 75
Figure 5.14: Moving Load Model .................................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.15: Maximum Vertical Displacement due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80 km/h ..... 77
Figure 5.16: Moment Envelope due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80 km/h ........................... 77
Figure 5.17: Cable Axial Force Response due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80 km/h ............ 77
Figure 5.18: Vertical Displacement due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 60 km/h ..................... 78
Figure 5.19: Vertical Displacement due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80 km/h ..................... 78
Figure 5.20: Vertical Displacement due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 120 km/h.................... 78

Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page VIII

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Existing Extradosed Bridges in the world .......................................................................... 9
Table 3.1: JTG D60-2004 calculated temperature gradient ............................................................... 28
Table 3.2: Extradosed Cable Inclinations in the Existing Extradosed Bridges ................................... 36
Table 3.3: Extradosed Cable weight ................................................................................................ 40
Table 4.1: Section Properties ........................................................................................................... 43
Table 4.2: Material Properties ......................................................................................................... 44
Table 4.3: Summary of Cable Equations .......................................................................................... 49
Table 4.4: Cable Lengths Comparison ............................................................................................. 51
Table 5.1: Natural Frequencies ........................................................................................................ 70
Table 5.2: Static Response VS Maximum Dynamic Response .......................................................... 79

Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page IX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Li Yongle and Professor Li Yadong for the opportunity
to study under their supervision and be part of their dynamic and ambitious bridge re-
search group. I would also like to say thanks to my research colleagues for their in-
sightful discussions and feedback: Boko-haya D. Didier, Cheng Ning, Xulin He.
Finally, thanks to my family especially to my uncle Adouayi Gregoire for encouraging
and supporting me through my studies.
Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Thesis Page 1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 HISTORICAL REVIEW
Post-tensioned bridges are well known for many years. One of their types is post-
tensioned bridge with external tendons. It has the advantage of restressing and replacing the
tendons easily. But post-tensioned bridges superstructures are very heavy. Another disad-
vantage of this type of bridge is the smaller lever arm due to the position of tendons. In order
to increase the eccentricity of the prestressed tendons and to reduce the superstructure self-
weight, the French engineer Jacques Mathivat introduced an innovative concept in 1988. The
engineer Jacques Mathivat proposed the use of external tendons outside and above the bridge
superstructure deck instead of placing them in the cross-section. This new system was called
extradosed prestressing.
In 1988, Jacques Mathivat working on the Arrt-Darr viaduct suggested the application
of his new concept. His proposal consisted of precast box girder with use of extradosed pre-
stressing. He replaced the internal tendons located in the upper flange of the box girder by
external prestressing cables above the deck. The cables were deviated at piers location with
the help of columns anchored in the box girder. Unfortunately, his proposal for the Arrt-
Darr viaduct was not selected.
Six years later (in 1994), Akio Kasuga, the Chief Bridge Engineer at Sumitomo Mitsui
Construction Co. Ltd applied Mathivats extradosed prestressing concept to the Odawara
Blueway Bridge. The Odawara Blueway Bridge is known as the first extradosed bridge con-
structed in the world that uses Mathivats concept. Its located in Japan and was completed in
1994. The bridge is a three-span (73.3 m + 122.3 m + 73.3 m) continuous box-girder with
extradosed prestressing as proposed by Mathivat. The stay cables (extradosed prestressing)
form two lateral planes with semi-fan arrangement. It has a width of 13 meters and a tower
height of 10.7 meters above the deck. The span-to-depth ratio (L/h) is 55.6 in middle span
and 34.94 at supports. The ratio span-to-height (L/H) is 10.54. The stresses caused in the ten-
dons under live load are reduced to approximately of that of conventional cable stayed-
bridge.

Figure 1.1: Odawara Blueway Bridge Elevation

Figure 1.2: Odawara Blueway Bridge
From 1994 to 2012, a great number (more than 70) of extradosed bridges with many cable
arrangements style have been successfully designed and constructed worldwide. And im-
portant research works have been done on this new type of bridge by many authors including
Qian Li, Jang Seok, Dong-Ho, Cheng Haiqian, Christian Glser, Wen-Chen Jau, Abu Saleh,
Takahiro, Congchun, Kumarasena, Ogawaetc.
1.2 BASIC CONCEPT OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
Since 1950s, the prestressing technology has been using widely in the construction of
bridge structures. Prestressing has the advantages of providing higher stiffness, increasing
durability, improving serviceability and performance under fatigue and dynamic loading.
However, prestressed tendons can deteriorate very rapidly when subjected to some environ-
mental effects or can suffer from fatigue. Therefore the maintenance of the prestressed ten-
dons, and their efficient use should be taken as important factors in the design process of pre-
stressed concrete bridge. Recently many innovative prestressing methods have been intro-
duced to the bridge construction including the extradosed prestressing concept.

The introduction of the extradosed prestressing brought a new idea of constructing short
span bridges with higher esthetic. But at the beginning there was not such idea. The only rea-
son why Mathivat introduced the concept of extradosed prestressing was the smaller eccen-
tricity due to the external tendons in conventional girder bridge. Increasing the eccentricity
of prestressing tendons by the help of a deviator outside and above the deck will increase the
deck stiffness and result in lighter deck. Extradosed bridge was just something like a pre-
stressed concrete girder bridge with some external prestressing tendons above the deck. This
new idea has developed very rapidly and now the extradosed bridge is becoming confused to
the conventional cable-stayed bridge due to their similarities in appearance. Sometimes, it is
very difficult to distinguish the extradosed bridge from the conventional cable-stayed based
on their physical appearance.

Figure 1.3: Girder Bridge, Extradosed Bridge and Cable-stayed Bridge
1.3 EXTRADOSED BRIDGE AND LOW-TOWER CABLE-
STAYED BRIDGE
Extradosed Bridge
Extradosed bridge is a combination of a box girder bridge and a cable stayed bridge. A
box girder bridge is a form of beam bridge in which the main beams comprise girders with
hollow box shape. The cross section of the hollow box may be rectangular or trapezoidal.
This type of bridge offers stronger construction. Its extremely rigid and therefore capable of
spanning greater distance. It can be prefabricated and then moved to its final location. But a
cable-stayed bridge consists of a girder supported by inclined stay cables from a tower. The
a - Girder Bridge b - Extradosed cable-stayed bridge c - Cable-stayed bridge
Extradosed prestressing
Stay cable
Cable deviator
Tower

stay cables behave like intermediate supports to the girder. The tower and stay cables of a
conventional cable-stayed bridge are axially loaded. The tower is under compression and the
stay cables are under tension. This is one of its advantages since axially loaded members are
more efficient than flexural members.
Extradosed bridge consists of a girder supported by inclined stay cables from a tower
therefore may be sometimes confused to cable stayed bridge. But the tower in extradosed
bridge is relatively lower than that of conventional cable-stayed bridge. Cable stayed bridge
and extradosed bridge are different in terms of structure behavior. They mostly appear to be
same but they dont behave the same way. The extradosed bridge may be defined as a contin-
uous girder bridge with external prestressing. Its girder depth is less than that of girder bridge
and can span greater distance than the conventional girder bridge. Its structural behavior is
closer to that of girder bridge. In extradosed bridge the stay cables provide horizontal sup-
ports to the deck. The deck segments are compressed one against another to resist the mo-
ment in the deck.

Figure 1.4: Cable Supports in Extradosed Bridge and Cable-stayed Bridge
Low-tower Cable-stayed Bridge

The role of stay cable in conventional cable-stayed bridge is to provide a vertical support
to the girder which is not stiff enough to resist alone moment due to live load. Stay cables
must intersect the girder at a higher angle so that the vertical component of the tension force
in the stay cable can remain bigger than the horizontal one. This will require a higher tower in
case of long span cable-stayed bridge. In fact, the tower height is a function of the span
length and longer span requires higher tower. The Sutong Bridge constructed in China with
longest span of 1,088 meters has a tower of 306 meters in height. Another bridge named An-
qing Bridge also constructed in China with longest span of 510 meters has a tower of 185 me-
ters in height. A decrease in span length leads to decrease in tower height. This is why the
tower of long span conventional cable-stayed bridge appears to be very high. But, in case of
small and medium-span cable-stayed bridges, the tower is not high as that of the long span
cable-stayed bridges. The span length is small and the corresponding tower height is lower
compared to that of long span cable-stayed bridges. This type of bridge may be called Low-
tower cable-stayed bridge. The low-tower cable-stayed bridges as described above may be
confused to extradosed bridges because of their appearance. A low-tower cable-stayed bridge
is not an extradosed bridge since it doesnt use extradosed prestressing. However low-tower
cable-stayed bridge may be sometimes used to describe the extradosed bridge. Especially in
China, extradosed bridge is called low-tower cable-stayed bridge.
1.4 EXTRADOSED BRIDGE SYSTEM
1.4.1 Stay Cable Arrangements
Three main configurations are generally used for the system of stay cables in extradosed
bridge. These include the fan system, the harp system and the semi-fan or modified fan sys-
tem. In the fan system, all stay cables converge or radiate from the top of the tower as shown
in the Figure 1.5-a. According to the experience with this configuration in conventional ca-
ble-stayed bridge, it leads to the most efficient structural system since it is entirely composed
of triangles. However, anchoring all the stay cables at one point at tower top will be very dif-
ficult and therefore the fan system is often modified as shown in the Figure 1.5-b. The modi-
fied system is called semi-fan or modified fan system.
In the harp system, the stay cables are connected to the tower at different heights and are
parallel to each other. From an esthetic point of view, this system may be preferred. The harp
system is shown is Figure 1.5-c.

Figure 1.5: Cable Arrangements in Extradosed Bridge
1.4.2 Cables Position in Space
In extradosed bridge, the stay cables are generally disposed in one vertical line above the
bridge center line or in two vertical planes at the edges of the girder as shown in Figure 1.6.
When stay cables are arranged in the central vertical plane of the girder, they only provide
horizontal and vertical support to the girder. They provide no torsional support to the girder
and therefore a bridge with this type of stay cables arrangement will require a girder with suf-
ficient torsional stiffness to resist any twisting moment from eccentric loads caused by traffic
loading in only one carriageway. Fortunately, the girder of extradosed bridges often consists
of a hollow box girder and hollow box girders are well known for their higher torsional stiff-
ness.
The two vertical planes arrangement provides horizontal, vertical and torsional support to
the girder and there is not any other necessary additional torsional stiffness requirement from
the girder.

Figure 1.6: Cable Position in Space
1.4.3 Tower Types
Various tower configurations are available for extradosed bridges. But it may depend on
whether the stay cables are arranged in one central vertical plane or in two vertical planes.
These tower configurations include the single tower type, the twin tower type, the portal tow-
er type, the A-frame tower type and the Y-frame tower type as shown in the Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7: Tower Types in Extradosed Bridges
The connection betweens stay cable and tower in extradosed bridge are shown in the Fig-
ure 1.8.

Figure 1.8: Tower Heads in Extradosed Bridges
b - Twin tower type a - Single tower type
c - Y-frame tower type d - Portal tower type e - A-frame tower type
a b c d

1.5 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the static and dynamic behavior of extradosed
prestressed concrete bridge based on numerical analysis methods and Statistical comparison
methods. The objectives of this study are summarized as follows:
- Provide a clear and comprehensive definition of an extradosed bridge;
- Clarify the difference between extradosed bridges and low tower cable-stayed bridge;
- Examine and present the evolution of extradosed bridge based on existing constructed
bridges worldwide;
- Provide criteria for preliminary design of extradosed bridges
- Investigate the static and dynamic behavior of extradosed bridges;
- Provide some recommendations for future work on the design and construction of ex-
tradosed bridges.
The thesis is organized in six chapters: the chapter 1 provides some general ideas and an
overview on the concept of the extradosed bridges. It also presents the structure configuration
of an extradosed bridge. The chapter 2 provides the study of the existing extradosed bridges.
In the chapter 3, the preliminary design criteria of extradosed bridges are discussed. The
chapter 4 and 5 provide the static and dynamic behavior of extradosed bridges. Finally the
chapter six provides a summary of this research work and also provides recommendations for
future works.


Chapter 2 STUDY OF EXISTING EXTRADOSED
BRIDGES
In this chapter, a general study will be conducted on the existing extradosed bridges con-
structed around the world. This study, based on experience in previously constructed extra-
dosed bridges with satisfactory performance will provide us with information on the past suc-
cessful practice. A database has been established basing on information collected on 87 ex-
tradosed bridges. This information was collected on the bridges geometrical parameters such
as span length, deck depth, tower height and stay cables arrangement in order to statistically
control their influence on the bridges. The collected data produce results that are easy to
summarize and compare. A part of the established database is shown is Table 2-1. From the
Figure 2-1, it can be seen that, from 1994 to 2013 more than 87 extradosed bridges have been
constructed in the world and 29 (33%) of them are located in Japan. This is comprehensive
since the extradosed technology has started in Japan and has developed very rapidly. Japan is
the most advanced country in the extradosed bridge experience. From 1994 to 2013, at least
one extradosed bridge is constructed in the world (see Figure 2-4). Asia is the most advanced
continent in extradosed technology. Of 87 extradosed bridges constructed in the world, 60
(69%) are located in Asia (see Figure 2-2).
Table 2.1: Existing Extradosed Bridges in the world
No Bridge Name Bridge Location Completion Year Main Span (m)
1 Odawara Blueway Bridge Japan 1994 122.3
2 St Rmy de Maurienne Bridge France 1996 52.4
3 Tsukuhara Bridge Japan 1997 180
4 Kanisawa Bridge Japan 1998 180
5 Shin-Karato Bridge Japan 1998 140
6 Sunniberg Bridge Switzerland 1998 140
7 King Hussein Bridge Jordan 1999 110
8 Santanigawa Bridge Japan 1999 92.9
9 Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Philippines 1999 185

10 Surikamigawa Bridge Japan 2000 84.82
11 Matakina Bridge Japan 2000 109.3
12 Pakse Bridge Laos 2000 143
13 Sajiki Bridge Japan 2000 105
14 Shikari Bridge Japan 2000 140
15 Wuhu Yangtze River Bridge China 2000 312
16 Yukisawa-Ohashi Bridge Japan 2000 71
17 Zhanbei Bridge China 2001 132
18 Hozu Bridge Japan 2001 100
19 Ibi River Bridge Japan 2001 271.5
20 Kiso River Bridge Japan 2001 275
21 Miyakodagawa Bridge Japan 2001 134
22 Nakanoike Bridge Japan 2001 60.6
23 Fukaura Bridge Japan 2002 90
24 Korror Babeldoap Bridge Palau 2002 247
25 Sashikubo Bridge Japan 2002 114
26 Shinkawa (Tobiuo) Bridge Japan 2002 130
27 Tongan Silver Lake Bridge China 2002 80
28 Xiaoxihu Yellow River Bridge China 2003 136
29 Beijing-Hangzhou Bridge China 2003 110
30 Changzhou Canal Bridge China 2003 120
31 Tobiuo Bridge Japan 2003 130
32 Deba River Bridge Spain 2003 66

33 Himi Bridge Japan 2004 180
34 Korong Bridge Hungary 2004 61.98
35 Shin-Meisei Bridge Japan 2004 122.3
36 Tatekoshi Bridge Japan 2004 56.3
37 Pingdingshan Ch. River Bridge China 2004 88
38 Shanxi Lishi Viaduct China 2005 135
39 Fenhe Bridge China 2005 150
40 Sannohe-Boukyo Bridge Japan 2005 200
41 Domovinski Bridge Croatia 2006 120
42 Kack-Hwa First Bridge South Korea 2006 115
43 Nanchiku Bridge Japan 2006 110
44 Rittoh Bridge Japan 2006 170
45 Tokuyama Bridge Japan 2006 220
46 Tagami Bridge Japan 2006 80.2
47 Hemaxi Bridge China 2006 230
48 Sanmen River Bridge China 2006 160
49 Caobai River Bridge China 2006 120
50 Yanagawa Bridge Japan 2006 130.7
51 Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge Brazil 2007 110
52 Gum-Ga Grand Bridge South Korea 2007 125
53 Bridge of the European Union Poland 2007 80
54 No.6 National Highway bridge Taiwan 2007 140
55 Nymburk Bypass Bridge Czech Republic 2007 132

56 Puh Bridge Slovenia 2007 100
57 Pyung-Yeo 2 Bridge South Korea 2007 120
58 Second Vivekananda Bridge India 2007 110
59 Jinglan Bridge China 2008 94.3
60 Cho-Rack Bridge South Korea 2008 130
61 Kum-Ga Bridge South Korea 2008 125
62 Riga South Bridge Latvia 2008 110
63 Bei Kang Extradosed Bridge Taiwan 2008 125
64 Sannai-Maruyama Bridge Japan 2008 150
65 North Arm Bridge Canada 2008 180
66 Trois Bassins Viaduct, France 2008 126
67 Rades La Goulette Bridge Tunisia 2008 120
68 Catumbela Bridge Angola 2009 160
69 Beijin Yudao River Bridge China 2009 120
70 Keong-An Bridge South Korea 2009 270
71 Karnaphuli Bridge Bangladesh 2009 200
72 Mouley el Hassan Bridge Morocco 2009 144.7
73 Golden Ears Bridge Canada 2009 242
74 Xianshen River Bridge China 2009 267
75 Povask Bystrica Bridge Slovakia 2010 122
76 Orkojahuira Bridge Bolivia 2010 103
77 Viaducto sobre el b. de Tero Spain 2010 145
78 Earthquake Memorial Bridge Pakistan 2010 123

79 Moolchand Bridge India 2010 65.5
80 Choqueyapu Bridge Bolivia 2010 92.5
81 Kantutani Bridge Bolivia 2010 113.5
82 Mszana A1 Motorway Bridge Poland 2012 130
83 Kwidzyn (DK90) Bridge Poland 2012 204
84 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge USA 2012 157
85 La Massana Bridge Andorra 2012
86 Saint Croix River Bridge USA Under Design 146
87 Gumgang No. 1 Bridge South Korea Under construction 185
France, origine of extradosed technology, was the second country that has applied the
extradosed concept, and it was two years after Japan ( in 1996). Until now there are only two
extradosed bridges in France. The first one was the Saint Rmy de Maurienne Bridge
completed in 1996 and the second one was the Trois Bassins Viaduct completed in 2008.
Another country where the extradosed technology has advanced is China. Of 87 extradosed
bridges constructed in the world 15 (17%) are located in China (see Figure 2-1). Almost the
half of that has been constructed in Japan. From 2000 to 2012, at least one extradosed bridge
is constructed in China. Based on the Figure 2-1, it can be observed that many countries have
only one extradosed bridge.

Figure 2.1: Number of Extradosed Bridges by Country

Figure 2.2: Number of Extradosed Bridges by Continent
Extradosed Bridge

Figure 2.3: Number of Extradosed Bridges by Year
2.1 CHOICE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGE TYPE
The selection of bridge type is made taking into account the major considerations such as
initial cost, future maintenance costs, construction time, and location. Selecting an appropri-
ate bridge type is a critical factor during the planning and design process of a bridge structure.
Based on the preliminary available data, the bridge designer must successfully select the
bridge type that is strong enough to support the loads, suitable to carry the desired traffic, aes-
thetically pleasing, economical in first coast and maintenance. However, there are no strict
rules for bridge type selection and every choice should result from a special study basing on
the technologies available, the structure behavior, the construction method and some other
factors. The raisons behind the choice of the existing constructed extradosed bridges may be
as follow (Konstantinos Kris Mermigas, 2008):
1. Extradosed bridges offer shallow structural depth that may be preferable in order to
meet clearance requirements or to minimize the approach grades.
2. Extradosed bridges have aesthetic advantages over cable-stayed bridge over deep val-
ley.
3. Extradosed bridges are suitable to meet the restrictions imposed by a nearby airport
that limit the height of the towers overhead.
Extradosed bridge seems to not be a necessary choice in many cases. This can explain why in
France where the concept of extradosed prestressing technology has been introduced to the

world only two extradosed bridges are constructed up to date. The first one was constructed
in 1996 and 12 years later (2008) the second one was completed. Many countries have only
one extradosed bridge. This doesnt mean that extradosed bridges are inefficient. This may be
due to the fact that there is an alternative to extradosed bridge at a better cost. For example,
girder bridge is an economical alternative to extradosed bridge.
2.2 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND DIMENSIONING
2.2.1 Span Length
The main span length (i.e. the longest horizontal distance in a straight line between con-
secutive towers) of the 87 extradosed bridges constructed around the world varies from 52
meters to 312 meters. The average main span length is 140 meters. 55 of the 87 bridges have
the main span length between 100 and 200 meters. Mathivat proposal for the Arrt-Darr Vi-
aduct consisted of an extradosed bridge with a main span length of 100 m. The first extra-
dosed bridge constructed in the world (in Japan) has a main span length of 122.3 m. 48 of 87
existing extradosed bridges have the main span length greater than that of first world extra-
dosed bridge. This shows that the extradosed technology has advanced in the recent years. An
economical span length of extradosed bridge may be between 100 and 200 meters.

Figure 2.4: Main Span Variation Worldwide

Figure 2.5: Main Span Variation in Japan
In Japan, of 29 completed extradosed bridges, 18 have the main span length between 100
and 200. Of the 18 bridges having their main span length between 100 and 200, 10 have
three-span arrangement. A few extradosed bridges have span number greater than three. Only
7 of 29 extradosed bridges constructed in Japan have span number greater than 3. Every ex-
tradosed bridge constructed in Japan with main span length greater than 275 is a multi-span
bridge (span number greater than 3).
Bridge deck flexural moment in side span is affected by the side span length variation.
Vincent T. H. CHU (2005) stated that, for a multi-span bridge with equal span length, the
sagging moment at the mid-span of the end/approach span is largest and this moment can be
reduced by taking the end/approach span length equal to 0.75 of the inner spans length. A de-
crease in the deck flexural moments in side span produces a decrease in the side span-to-main
span ratio (Chio, 2000). The use of side span-to-main span ratio greater than 0.60 in extra-
dosed bridges produces high deflections and increase tension in the deck. However, Kasuga
(2006) indicated that since extradosed bridges and prestressed girder bridges are similar in
structure behavior, side span length should be determined between 0.6 and 0.8 from the main
span length.

Figure 2.6: Relation between Main Span and Side Span
Based on the existing multi-span extradosed bridges in Japan, the relationship between
side span length and main span length is studied. Its shown that, there is a linear relationship
between these two span lengths (see Figure 2.6).
Of 20 extradosed bridges having a span number equal to or greater than 3, 8 have side
span to main span ratio between 0.6 and 0.8.
From aesthetic point of view, it is desirable to have an odd number of spans with a de-
crease in length in the direction of the abutments. Moreover, span of equal spans length are
found to be boring. However, the arrangement of irregular span lengths is not recommended
(Vincent T. H. CHU, 2005)
2.2.2 Girder Depth
The choice of the slenderness ratio (span to depth ratio) is an important task during the
dimensioning process of the superstructure of an extradosed bridge. When the span-to-depth
ratio is known, the depth of the superstructure is then determined. For the Arrt-Darr Via-
duct superstructure, Mathivat proposed a constant depth superstructure with span-to-depth
ratio of 26.67. The first application of extradosed bridge consisted of a superstructure with
span-to-depth ratio of 55.6 at mid-spans and 35 at towers. But, Mathivat suggested the use of

a constant span to depth ratio between 30 and 35. Komiya suggested for pier embedded
bridges, a slenderness of 35 at towers and 55 at mid-spans (Jos Benjumea, 2010). Almost
every bridge with side span to main span ratio between 0.6 and 0.8 has variable deck depth.

Figure 2.7: Girder Depth
The Figure 2-7 shows that, extradosed bridges with variable span to depth ratio are found
to be preferred. 77.42% of the existing extradosed bridges have variable span to depth ratio
and 22.58% have constant span to depth ratio. Of 29 extradosed bridges constructed in Japan
only 3 have constant span to depth ratio (between 35 and 45). Based on the extradosed bridg-
es constructed in Japan, the relationship between deck depth at tower and mid-span is found
to be as shown in Figure 2.8.


Figure 2.8: Girder Depth Variations
2.2.3 Tower Height
Tower height is a very important parameter that affects considerably the definition of the
extradosed bridge. For the various extradosed bridge constructed around the world, the tower
height varies from 3.3 to 41.5 meters. A study was conducted on how the parameters such as
main span length and deck width influence the tower height. Its found that the deck width
doesnt have any significant influence on the tower height, but the main span length has a big
influence on the tower height. The relationship between main span length and tower height
can be approximated as follows:
Where: is the tower height and is the main span length.
The tower height increases as the main span length increases. Mathivats concept for ex-
tradosed bridge consisted of the use of a span to tower height ratio of 15. Of 29 extradosed
bridges completed in Japan, 15 have span to tower height ratio higher than 15.
2.3 RECENT APPLICATIONS OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
2.3.1 Pearl Harbor Memorial Extradosed Bridge, United Stated, 2012
The new Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Quinnipiac Bridge) is the first extradosed bridge
in United States. The bridge was opened to traffic on June 22, 2012. This bridge (contract
ht
ht

B1/B 92-618/532) located in New Haven is a part of a $3 billion megaproject that will be ful-
ly completed in 2016 and was constructed by two contractors (B1 92-618 and B 92-532) with
combined contract value of $554 Million: Cianbro/Middlesex for contract B1 and Walsh/PCL
for contract B. The bridge superstructure is a three span continuous cast-in-place segmental
5-cell concrete box girder with longitudinal parabolic haunch. This haunch results in a span
to depth ratio (L/h) of 44.86 in middle span and 31.40 at tower. The deck was designed in
both concrete and steel for a 100-year life span, and carries 10 lanes, 5 lanes in each direction.
The new Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge consists of a center span of 157 meters long, two
side spans each 76 meters long and an overall length of approximately 308.8 meters. The
tower height is 22.86 meters above the deck with a span to height ratio (L/H) of 7.37. The
stay cables are arranged in a double plane with a harp configuration. The cable plans are
slightly inclined outward the vertical plan. Each tower pier supports 64 stay cables with 16
stay cables at both side of the deck and 32 cables in the middle of the deck. The stay cables
are connected to the tower piers using anchor boxes.

Figure 2.9: New Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Steven L. Stroh, 2012)
2.3.2 St. Croix Crossing Extradosed Bridge, United Stated, 2012
The St. Croix Crossing Bridge will be the second extradosed bridge in United States. It
will be located between Oak Park Heights, Minn. and St. Joseph, Wis. The bridge is still un-
der design process and its construction is expected to start in fall 2013. The St. Croix Cross-
ing Bridge is a fourlane bridge, estimated to cost between $280 and $310 million and is a
part of the larger project, which includes expressways on either side of the bridge in Minne-
sota and Wisconsin, and an extensive trail facility for pedestrians and bicyclists. The total

cost for the entire project will cost between $580 and $676 million. The bridge consists of
eight spans segmental concrete structure, including six146.3 m extradosed spans and two
88.4 m end spans. The new river crossing structure will provide 12 m wide roadways and a
3.66 m wide pedestrian trail in each direction. Advantage will be taken on the use of a re-
duced number of expansion joints to reduced the future maintenance and improve long-term
performance on the bridge. The bridge superstructure will be then integrally connected to the
substructure at every pier with only two expansion joints: one at the Wisconsin abutment and
one at the Minnesota transition pier. The cable system of the St.Croix River Crossing consists
of 252 cables (each cable comprises 37@0.01524 m diameter strands). 36 stay cables, ar-
ranged in two plans, are anchored at eat pier. The angle between cables and the horizontal
plan varies from 14 to 22 (Preston D. Vineyard, 2010). The construction will follow a bal-
anced cantilever construction sequence. Precast concrete was identified as the best alternative
for the extradosed river bridge spans and will be far more advantageous for both cost and
schedule than cast-in-place segments (Parsons, 2012). The towers of the new extradosed
bridge are planned to have a constant height of 18.28 feet above the deck and a variable
height (51.82 m to 64.62 m) above the water line (Preston D. Vineyard, 2010). The span to
tower height ratio of the St. Croix Crossing Bridge is 8, which is almost the half of that sug-
gested by Mathivat (Mathivat suggested a span to tower height ratio of 15). The superstruc-
ture of the St.Croix River Crossing consists of two concrete segmental box girders (3 - cell
cross - section) connected by full depth diaphragms at the cable support locations. The box
girders were firstly designed with a constant depth of 6 meters. Later, after conducting longi-
tudinal analysis, it has been found that a box girder depth of 4.88 meters is more advanta-
geous. This reduction leaded to a cost saving of $134.55 per square meter (Parsons Brincker-
hoff, 2010).
Figure 2.10: St. Croix Crossing Bridge (HDI Engineering: Parsons Brinckerhoff)

2.3.3 Kwidzyn (DK90) Extradosed Bridge, Poland, 2012
The bridge crosses over Vistula River in Kwidzyn along national road No 90 Poland with to-
tal length of 808 meters (70.0m + 130.0m + 2x204.0m + 130.0m + 70.0m) and was con-
structed by balanced cantilevering method. The Kwidzyn Bridge was said to be the largest of
its kind in Europe and one of the largest in the world. Budimex and Ferrovial Agroman were
chosen to be responsible for the execution of the project with an investment of about 380 mil-
lion z (about 90 million Euro).The Kwidzyn Bridge, one of the biggest new bridges in Po-
land is expected to be completed by the end of year 2012. The tower height above the deck is
21.52 meters. The superstructure of the main bridge consists of a prestressed concrete box
girder with double vertical planes of extradosed cables.

Figure 2.11: Kwidzyn (DK90) Extradosed Bridge (Jan Biliszczuk and Wojciech Barcik, 2011)


Chapter 3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA
OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
3.1 DESIGN CONCEPT: EXTRADOSED BRIDGE AS A GIRDER
BRIDGE WITH EXTRADOSED PRESTRESSING.
According to the earlier researchers, the design of extradosed bridges follows two ap-
proaches depending on the way the live load is carried. The first approach uses a stiff girder
and the second approach considers a stiff tower. Almost all extradosed cable-stayed bridges
built to date follow one of these two approaches (Mermigas 2008):
1- First approach (stiff girder extradosed bridge): The concept of stiff girder design in ex-
tradosed bridge is based on the stiffness of the girder. The cross section of the girder is de-
signed with an adequate stiffness based on the available depth of the girder. Prestressed ten-
dons are used to increase the bending capacity of the girder in both transverse and longitudi-
nal direction. Girder, stay cables and piers are designed such a way the live load is carried
through flexural behavior, the stresses in the cables are less and the stress variation in the stay
cables caused by live load does not exceed a certain standard limit.
2- Second approach (stiff tower extradosed bridge): This approach involves the use of stiff
tower. The idea of stiff tower in cable supported bridge was introduced by Menn (1987) and
was applied in extradosed bridge when constructing the Sunniberg Bridge. According to this
approach the superstructure is designed in such a way live load is absorbed by the tower
through an axial force couple between stay cable and girder. This system of carrying live load
produces high stresses in the cables. The span to depth ratio may be higher than that of the
first approach.
The design concept adopted here is more similar to the first approach and closer to the
original idea of extradosed prestressing technology as per Mathivat. Extradosed bridge is de-
fined as a box girder bridge with external prestressing (extradosed prestressing) above the
deck. Box girder bridge must be strong enough in flexure to carry loads with success. For this
purpose, the extradosed system is added to the structure to improve the flexural capacity of
the box girder by providing the box girder with additional compressing forces. Its found that
structures with such configuration are more efficient and aesthetic. But, doing so may result

in a very expensive design if a serious study is not carried out on the extradosed cable system.
The main issue is how to convert the box girder bridge to an extradosed bridge at reasonable
cost. Therefore, new design criteria have been developed basing on cantilever constructed
girder bridge and on the extradosed cable inclination since cable inclination controls the tow-
er height, cable length and the compressing force introduced in the girder by the cable. Cable
inclination has been identified as a very important parameter for the design of extradosed
bridge.
Since the girder segments have to be compressed one against other in the longitudinal di-
rection, the cable inclination should be small so that the resulting horizontal component of the
cable tension will be bigger. Therefore the cable inclinations are associated with the slopes
found on prestressing tendons ( and with in radian). But a too small
cable inclination will result in small lever arm. So its necessary to determine the range of
cable inclination values that will satisfy all requirements. But before this, what are the design
codes and loads?
3.2 DESIGN CODES AND LOADS
3.2.1 Design Codes
As many countries, China doesnt have a specific code for extradosed bridges. Decisions
during design and construction of extradosed bridges in China are made basing on the follow-
ing highway bridge codes:
- General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG D60-2004).
- Guidelines for Design of Highway Cable-stayed Bridge (JTG/T D65-01-2007).
- Code for Design of Highway Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Bridges and
Culverts (JTG D62-2004).
- Code for Design of Ground Base and Foundation of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG
D63-2007).
Two design philosophies are adopted in these specifications: load and resistance factor design
(RFD) theory for reinforced prestressed concrete members and allowable stress design (ASD)
theory for steel and timber members.

3.2.2 Design Loads
Loads are stipulated in General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG
D60-2004)for the design of highway Bridge. This code was published in 2004 by China Na-
tional Ministry of Transport. The earlier version of this code was JTJ 021-89 (1989).
3.2.2.1 Vehicle Loads
In JTJ 021-89, four classes of truck train loads were provided as standard traffic live loads
and there was no lane loading mentioned in this code. A system of Truck I, Truck II, Truck
III and Truck IV was adopted.
In 2004, the JTJ 021-89 was revised (JTG D60-2004) and the system of truck train loadings
was replaced by equivalent lane loading system. The new loading system consists of a com-
bination of a uniform load and a concentrated load. Highway-I and Highway-II (as shown in
Figure 3.1) are the new terminologies.

Figure 3.1: Chinese Lane Loads
For Highway-I:
- The uniform load q
k
=10.5KN/m
- The value of the concentrated load is as follows:
p
k
=180KN when L5m
p
k
=360KN when L50m
p
k
is determined by linear interpolation when 5mL50m
- For shear, the values of q
k
and p
k
should be multiplied by a coefficient of 1.2
For Highway-II:
The uniform load q
k
and p
k
are as heavier as those for Highway-I.

3.2.2.2 TEMPERATURE
The temperature effects on concrete bridge structures are very significant. Concrete ex-
pands as the temperature increases and contracts as the temperature decreases. Therefore, in
restrained concrete member, a decrease in temperature will produce tensile stresses and an
increase in temperature produces compression stresses. According to some researchers the
stresses due to temperature changes in concrete bridge deck may sometimes be greater than
those due to live load. In extradosed bridge, there are three temperature effects: difference of
temperature between superstructure and stay cables, temperature gradient in the superstruc-
ture and uniform temperature in the whole structure.
3.2.2.3 Differential Temperature between Superstructure and Stay Cable.
Steel is more sensitive to temperature change. When sun shines on a bridge structure, steel
components in the bridge will heat up faster than the concrete components. In extradosed
bridge, as temperature rise, the stay cables try to elongate more than the superstructure. This
will produce a decrease in tension in the stay cables and consequently will cause bending in
the superstructure. The General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG
D60-2004) specifies a differential temperature of 10 C between stay cable and concrete su-
perstructure.
3.2.2.4 Temperature Gradient in Extradosed Bridge Superstructure
The Chinese highway bridge code JTG D60-2004 specifies a linear temperature gradient
distribution. The code only considers the heating of the top of the superstructure. The effect
of temperature gradient is calculated based on a vertical linear distribution curve along the
cross-section of the superstructure as shown in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1. A = H-100 (mm)
when the superstructure depth H is less than 400mm, when the superstructure depth H is
equal to or greater than 400mm, A = 300mm. For the steel structure with a concrete bridge
deck, A = 300mm. t denotes the thickness of the concrete bridge deck.


Table 3.1: JTG D60-2004 calculated temperature gradient
STRUCTURE TYPE T
1
(C) T
2
(C)
Concrete pavement 25 6.7
50 mm thick asphalt concrete pavement 20 6.7
100 mm thick asphalt concrete pavement 14 5.5
Two linear temperature gradient distributions are specified in the American highway
bridge design code. One corresponds to heating period and one corresponding to cooling pe-
riod. The Figure 3.3 illustrates the model of AASHTO temperature gradient. t denotes the
depth of the concrete deck. A = 0.30 m, T
1
= 25 C and T
2
= 6.7 C. T3 will be taken as 0 C
or can be determined based on site study but cannot exceed 3 C.

Figure 3.2: JTG D60-2004 temperature gradient Figure 3.3: AASHTO temperature gradient
3.3 GENERAL STRUCTURE AND COMPONENTS SIZING
3.3.1 Choice of Main span and Side Span
Since its expected to design an extradosed bridge that will cost approximately what a box
girder bridge will cost, the main span length of an extradosed bridge should be kept between
100 and 200 meters. This span range can be extended up to 100 250 meters. But instead, the
span range is kept close to that the box girder bridge so that the remaining span cost can be
used on the design of the extradosed prestressing.

The ratio (Ls/L) between the main span and the side span should be in a certain range so
that its influence on the anchor pier and the back stay cable can be reduced. In a cable stayed
bridge the side span to main span ratio should not exceed 0.5. For a box girder bridge the ra-
tio of side span length to the main span length is determined between 0.65 and 0.7. This range
may be also used for extradosed bridge since the idea here is to design the girder of extra-
dosed bridge like that of box girder bridge. A ratio between 0.65 and 0.7 is acceptable for the
preliminary design of an extradosed bridge.
The dimensioning and proportioning of extradosed bridge can be easily carried out by us-
ing the experience gained from both the design of box girder bridges and cable stayed bridges.
3.3.2 Cable Spacing and Girder Segment Length
In cable stayed bridge, the cables act as an elastic support for the deck. Therefore, the
moment distribution along the deck of a cable-stayed bridge is influenced by the number of
cable used to support the deck. One or multiple stays can be used. The use of smaller number
of cable leads to large spacing between cable attachment points. This requires greater diame-
ter cables and bigger girder depth with complicated cable attachment. But the use of big
number of cables leads to small spacing of cables. The multiple stays system has the ad-
vantage of smaller diameter cable, smaller stayed girder depth, improvement in girder longi-
tudinal bending moment, simpler cable attachment and easy replacement of cables.
Decision making involving cable spacing and girder segment length should also take into
consideration the erection method. Free or balance cantilever method is the most erection
method used in the construction of cable stayed bridge. This method requires the use of form
travelers. Cables are spaced depending on the available form travelers or form travelers are
designed according to the required cable spacing and segment length. According to the cur-
rent practice, cable spacing is chosen between 5 and 15 meters on the deck and between 2 and
3 meters on the tower.
In extradosed bridges, the cables do not play the same role like those in cable stayed
bridge. The extradosed system is to improve the flexural behavior of the girder instead of
providing the girder with elastic vertical supports. Nevertheless, the above described multiple
stays system and erection method for cable stayed bridge can still be applied in extradosed
bridge but additional considerations are required. In case of pre-cast concrete segment con-
struction, the weight and the length of concrete girder segments should meet the transporta-

tion requirements. Its found that cable spaces chosen between 4 and 6 meters on the deck
and between 0.8 and 1.2 meters on the pylon are reasonable for an extradosed bridge. The
space between the two cables located in the middle of the main span (around middle key
segment) may be between 1 and 2 meters or greater but should not exceed 0.1 times the main
span length. The attachment point of the first stay (i.e. the shortest cable), according to
Mathivat, should be fixed at 0.1from the main span length. This part of the extradosed girder
contains a big amount of prestress steel and therefore the first cable should be a little far away
from the tower. This value (0.1L) can be reduced but should not be less than 0.075L.
3.3.3 Girder Depth
The determination of girder stiffness does not only take into account the stay layout but al-
so the depth of the girder. In case the superstructure consists of box girder, a very deep girder
will result in a heavier superstructure and will be subjected to higher transversal load effect.
Therefore, the girder depth should take a minimum value that will satisfy the stability and
economy requirements.
The girder of an extradosed bridge can be determined from that of the corresponding box
girder bridge by moving out an amount of internal prestress steel. The removed quantity of
internal prestress steel will be a part of the total quantity required for the design of the extra-
dosed prestressing. This of course will lead to reduction in girder depth. In general, a reduc-
tion in girder depth produces a decrease in concrete volume; and concrete volume decreases
as the span to depth ratio increases. A box girder with higher span-to-depth ratio will require
a big amount of prestress steel. The prestress demand caused by the increase in the span-to-
depth ratio will be easily satisfied in extradosed bridge due to the fact that extradosed pre-
stressing provides the girder with higher prestressing moments.
According to the current practice, the span-to-depth ratio of a cantilever constructed girder
bridge should be as follow:
- At piers: 15 < L/Ht < 25; At span middle: 30 <L/Hm< 50 for variable depth
- For constant depth: 15 < L/Ht = L/Hm < 30; Ht and Hm are as indicated in the
Fig.3.4


Figure 3.4: Girder depth
How much should the girder depth decrease so that the resulting girder (extradosed girder)
will meet all requirements? Based on the expressions of Menn that express for cantilever con-
structed girder bridges the average girder thickness h and the mass of longitudinal prestress
steel

as a function of average span L
a
as shown below:
h
and
with

(n is the number of span and k is span number.
is in
. h and La are in meter.)

its found that 30% decrease in girder depth will produce 48% decrease in prestress steel in
terms of quantity. In terms of structural behavior, a girder with 48% decrease in prestress
consumption may suffer from instability even though the girder dead load has decrease. For-
tunately the extradosed prestressing will compensate this lack of internal prestress. The span-
to-depth ratio for extradosed girder was then suggested as follow:
- At piers: 30 < L/Ht < 40; At span middle: 50 <L/Hm< 60 for variable depth
- For constant depth: 32 < L/Ht = L/Hm < 38; Ht and Hm are as indicated in the Figure
3.4
Its expected that girder depth determined in accordance with the above criteria provide satis-
factory for economy, serviceability and aesthetic requirements. These criteria will be evaluat-
ed in the next chapter.
3.3.4 Tower Height
It can be said that, in extradosed bridges, the tower plays the role of deviator. It helps in
improving the structural behavior of the girder by providing the girder with prestressing mo-
ment through the cables. This is due to its smaller height and the larger eccentricity of the ex-
tradosed cables. The height of the tower and the eccentricity of the cables are all both a func-
Ht
Hm
Girder Depth

tion of the cable inclination. As explain in the last paragraph of 3.1, the cable inclination has
been identified as an important parameter for the determination of the criteria that govern the
choice of the tower height during the preliminary design process of extradosed bridge. In ex-
tradosed bridge, cable must be inclined enough to produce higher horizontal compressing
force in the girder. For this purpose, the following approximations have been made on the
cable inclination
:
{

With

in radian
However, the tower height should not be too small to avoid smaller lever arm and aesthetical-
ly poor structure. Therefore, the height of the tower should be kept to a reasonable minimum
that will provide satisfactory for service, aesthetic and economy. The biggest cable inclina-
tion

is that of the first cable as shown in the Figure 3.5. Its found that a maximum value of
0.33 radians is reasonable for
.

Figure 3.5: Cable Inclination

; k = 1, 2, 3 .n ; k and n are respectively cable number and number of

cable.
As concluded above the first cable attachment point should be at a distance
which
should be in the following proportion:
with L the main span length.

H1
L1
1
First cable

From the above relation, its shown that the height (
) of attachment point of the first

stay cable on the tower should be between 0.0257 and 0.0342 from the main span length.
This will help in determining the tower height (H) basing on the cable spacing (b) on the
tower. Its assumed that the stay cables are equally spaced on both the girder and tower.
From the paragraph 3.3.2, we have:
{

{

L, b, c, and d are as shown in the Figure 3.6. They are all in meters. L is the main span length,
b is distance between two cables on the tower, c is the length of girder portion without cable
located around the middle key-segment and d is the distance between two cables on the girder.

Figure 3.6: Bridge Dimension Nomenclature
Lets assume
the height of the k

th
cable attachment point on the tower:

( )
k = 2, 3, 4 .n ; k and n are respectively cable number and number of cable

( ) ( ) ( )
L1
H
d
C/2
L/2
b
H1
Ls
1
Dimension Nomenclature
Symetric axe

( )
( )
( )

( )
( )

When ;
( ) (tower height)

( )
( )

( )
( )
( )
( )

( )
[ (
)]

[ (
)]
[ (
)]

(
)

(
( )
( )

(
(tower height)

Since the main span lengths considered here are between 100 and 200 the tower height to
main span length ratio is finally estimated as follow:


3.3.5 Cable Inclination
As said above, cable inclination controls somehow the tower height, cable length, the lever
arm and the horizontal component of the cable tension. Between 0 and 90 degree, a decrease
in cable inclination produces an increase in the horizontal component of the cable tension; but
produces a decrease in tower height, cable length and lever arm. Previously, it was found that,
in extradosed bridge, the inclination (
) of the first cable should not exceed 0.33 radians or

should keep (
) between 0.025L and 0.034L.

For the last cable we have:
( )

( )

( )

c is very small compare to L, so and

It can be concluded that, in extradosed bridges the inclination of the cables should vary be-
tween 0.17 radians and 0.33 radians or between 10 and 19. The cable inclinations of some
of the extradosed bridges constructed around the world are shown is the Table 3.2


Table 3.2: Extradosed Cable Inclinations in the Existing Extradosed Bridges
Bridge Name
Main Span
(m)
Tower Height
(m)
Cable Inclina-
tion ()
Ganter Bridge 174 14.9 10-20
Barton Creek Bridge 103.63 9.98 8
Socorridos Bridge 106 17 21-29
Odawara Blueway Bridge 122 11.6 12-18
St Rmy de Maurienne Bridge 52.50 3.5 12
Tsukuhara Bridge 180 16 11-23
Shin-Karato Bridge 140 12 12-18
Sunniberg Bridge 140 13.75 12
Santanigawa Bridge 92.9 12.6 14-21
Pakse Bridge 143 15 14-18
Wuhu Yangtze River Bridge 312 34 15-31
Yukisawa-Ohashi Bridge 71 11.5 12
Hozu Bridge 100 10 13-19
Ibi River Bridge 271.5 30 19-35
Kiso River Bridge 275 30 19-35
Miyakodagawa Bridge 134 20.70 13-27
Korror Babeldoap Bridge 247 22.34 15-26
Shinkawa (Tobiuo) Bridge 130 13 14-19
Himi Bridge 180 19.75 14-26

Bridge Name
Main Span
(m)
Tower Height
(m)
Cable Inclina-
tion ()
Korong Bridge 61.98 9.45 12-15
Shin-Meisei Bridge 122.34 16.50 15-22
Domovinski Bridge 120 11-17
Rittoh Bridge 140 30.8 14-38
Third Bridge over Rio Branco 90 12.10 13-19
Brazil-Peru Integration Bridge 110 15 14-21
Pyung-Yeo 2 Bridge 120 10.5 12-21
North Arm Bridge 180 18 14
Viaduc de la Ravine 104.40 19 11-20
Golden Ears Bridge 242 41.5 18
Pearl Harbor M. Bridge 157 21.30 15

3.3.6 Manual Preliminary Calculation for Extradosed Cable
The cable configuration of an extradosed bridge is similar to that of a typical cable-stayed
bridge. Therefore, some of the techniques used in cable stayed-bridge can also be applied for
extradosed bridge. This will be the case for the preliminary determination of the quantities
such as cable force, cable cross-sectional area, deflection and moment of cable attachment
points.
3.3.6.1 Extradosed cables allowable stress for service loads
In cable-stayed bridge, the cables and anchorage system are highly vulnerable to fatigue
phenomena due to the big amount of live load stress variation in the cables. In extradosed
bridge fatigue phenomena can be neglected since live load stress variations in the cables are
small. The cable allowable stress (
) is usually limited by different specification as follow:


SETRA

Japan PCEAS-strand system

Japan PCEAS-wire system

3.3.6.2 Load carried by stay cables
The extradosed cables should be design to carry only about 15% to 50% of the total load.
The remaining load is carried by the girder which is very stiff due to its big amount of inter-
nal prestressing. In 1998, Ogawa and Kasuga introduce an index which describes the load
participation ratio of a cable. This index is found to be very useful since it represents the
stiffness ratio between the cables and girder. In terms of structure characteristics, the index
provide a boundary between cable-stayed bridge and extradosed bridge. = 30 % could form
the boundary between cable-stayed and extradosed bridges (S Ikeda, 2000).

3.3.6.3 Cable Force and Cross-Sectional Area
During the preliminary design process, initial cable forces should be determined based on
manual calculation since the computer will require some input data on the cables later at the
design stage. The manual preliminary calculation does not determine the exact results but
provides reasonable results that will be very useful for the design of an extradosed bridge.
More than the half of the total load is carried by the girder in an extradosed bridge. The re-
maining load is carried by the extradosed cable in such a way there is no deflection of the

girder and tower. By ignoring the force due to self weight of the cable and the bending stiff-
ness of both the girder and tower, the force
in a cable at middle span can be expressed as

follow:

Where
is the vertical reaction produced at the attachment point of cable k and
is the
cable inclination with respect to the deck.
The horizontal component
of the force in the cable k will be:

The back-stay cable carries the force
which can be computed by ignoring the bending

stiffness of the tower and based on the assumption that the tower is horizontally immovable
due the fact that the horizontal component of the cable force should be balanced at the tower.

The cross-sectional area of the cable k can be computed from:

In which
is the cable allowable stress. For an extradosed cable, the allowable stress
may be taken equal to

.
3.3.7 Preliminary Steel consumption Estimation
The sources of steel consumption in extradosed bridges can be associated with the ex-
tadosed prestressing, the internal prestressing and the reinforcement. At the stage of prelimi-
nary design, it may be necessary to have an idea on the amount of steel required for the pro-
ject. This may be useful for the initial cost estimation of the bridge. The steel consumptions
for extradosed prestressing are collected in some of existing extradosed bridges and are pre-
sented in the Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Extradosed Cable weight
Extradosed Bridge Stay Details Bridge Geometry
Project name / Client No. Cable
weight
[kg]
No. Py-
lons
Total
Length
[m]
Earthquake Memorial Bridge 114 120000 1 246
National Highway Authorities (NHA)

Bridge Ziarnovica 24 27000 2 240
Slovensk nrodn dialnicn spolocnost

Bridge Povazska Bystrica 112 214000 7 969
Slovensk nrodn dialnicn spolocnost

Sannaimaruyama Bridge 132 180000 3 450
Japan Railway Construction, Transport and
Technology Agency(JRTT)

Hirano Bridge 32 18000 2 132
West Japan Railway Company

Ohnogawa Bridge 32 48000 1 285
Japan Railway Construction, Transport and
Technology Agency(JRTT)

Trois Bassins 34 100000 2 240
Conseil Rgional de La Runion

Satonojou Bridge 48 20000 2 186
Kumamoto pref.

Nanchiku Bridge 64 98000 2 248
Fukuoka pref.

Kanazawatagami Bridge 28 38000 1 166
Ishikawa pref.

Yanagawa Bridge 48 82000 1 264
Iwate pref.

Noikura Bridge 64 72000 2 273
Japan Greensource Agency Kyusyu Branch

Domovinski Bridge, Zagreb 64 152000 2 264
Grad Zagreb

Sannohe Bridge 120 188000 2 400
Aomori pref./East Japan Railway Company

Arakogawa Bridge 48 37000 2 246
Central Japan Railway Company

Tobiuo Bridge 64 116000 2 385
Shizuoka pref.

Sashiki Bridge 64 52000 2 223
Kumamoto pref.

Nakanoike Bridge 20 28000 1 122
Osaka Prefectural Road Public Corp.

Fukaura Bridge 48 37000 2 140
Niigata pref.

Matakina Bridge 120

1 199
Okinawa pref.


Extradosed Bridge Stay Details Bridge Geometry
Project name / Client No. Cable
weight
[kg]
No. Py-
lons
Total
Length
[m]
Shikari Bridge 320

4 610
Hokkaido Development

Hozu Bridge 64 49000 2 366
Kyoto pref.

Koror Babelthuap Bridge
48 147000 2 414
Republic of Palau

Mactan Bridge 120 300000 2 410
Department of public Works and Highways of
Philippines

Karato Bridge 128 180000 4 285
Hanshin Expressway Company Ltd.

Shouyou Bridge 112 231000 2 380
Akita pref.

Odawara Blueway Bridge 64 60000 2 268
Japan Highway Public Corporation

In general, the amount of cable required increases as the span length increases. Based on the
data in the Table 3.3 a preliminary estimation of the cable weight
can be expressed as a
function of the total span length

Where
is in tone and
in meter.
For the longitudinal prestressing and reinforcement, the expression of Menn that estimates
the mass of the longitudinal prestressing
and reinforcing
for cantilever constructed

girder bridge can be used:
{

Where
(in meter), both
and
are in
. n is the num-
ber of span and k is span number.


Chapter 4 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR
Previously, based on some of the design criteria of cantilever constructed girder bridge
and cable-stayed bridge, a proposal of preliminary design criteria has been made for extra-
dosed bridge. In this section, some investigations will be conducted on the structural behavior
of extradosed bridges. The structural interaction between the bridge structure components
will be explained. The static response of the bridge to loading conditions at different state
will be investigated.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE MODEL DESIGNED FOR
ANALYSIS
The bridge designed for the investigation of the structural behavior of extradosed bridges
is a 3-span symmetric bridge with a main span length of 140 meters and a total length of 328
meters. Each side span is 94 meters long (see Fig.4.1). The superstructure is 25.5 meters wide
and consists of a prestressed concrete box-girder. The bridge is designed to carry four lanes,
two lanes in each direction. The box-girder depth varies longitudinally form 4.5 meters at the
pier to 2.5 meters at midspan. The girder is designed to carry about 60 % of the total dead
load. Therefore its provided with a suitable amount of internal prestressing steel. The re-
maining load is balanced by the extradosed cables through the help of the towers. The towers
are 17 meters high and each of them supports symmetrically 22 extradosed cables. The cable
inclinations vary between 10 and 20. In order to take advantage on the higher torsional
stiffness of the box-girder, the central plane cable arrangement is adopted for the extradosed
cables with a semi-fan arrangement. The cables are 4 meters spaced on the girder and 0.8 me-
ters spaced on the towers. At each cable attachment point on the girder there is a diaphragm
assisting loads transfer between the box girders and the cables. The extradosed cables were
initially designed assuming that they would resist approximately 40% of the dead load mo-
ment. The bridge was mainly designed according to the design concepts and criteria proposed
in the chapter 3. The bridge material and section properties are like shown in the Tables 4.1
and 4.2. :


Figure 4.1: Bridge Model Details
Table 4.1: Section Properties
Cross-Sections A (m
2
) Ixx (m
4
) Iyy (m
4
) Izz (m
4
)
Pier 1 48.634 840.427 395.933 888.52
Pier 2 86.564 1457.99 582.106 1679.16
Cable 1 0.0077 0 0 0
Cable 2 0.0085 0 0 0
Girder 1 22.7146 156.311 61.8572 801.229
Girder 2 18.8132 43.9334 14.3355 691.681
Upper Tower 1 8.4581 23.4692 38.6786 8.4529
Upper Tower 2 4.7941 6.0385 5.9889 2.5715
Foundation Cap 400 22500 13333.33 13333.33

9400
1400 4400 3600
4
5
0
1
7
0
0
1200 114004400 1400
Longitudinal View
Bridge Details
800
300
0.5L~0.76L L = 14000
Elevation
7 43 1075
2550/2
1075 300
2550/2
43 7
220
Tower
4
5
0
1
2
5
0
3
0
0
010000
50100
1453
1150 2147 500 2147 1150
7095 1453

Table 4.2: Material Properties
Component Material
Elasticity
Modulus
(KN/m
2
)
Poisson
Ratio
Density
(KN/m
3
)
Girder Concrete C60 3.60e+07 0.2 25
Pier Concrete C50 3.45e+07 0.2 25
Cable Steel 1.95e+08 0.3 85
Ps Tendon Strand1860 1.95e+08 0.3 78.5
Bottom Tower Concrete C40 3.25e+07 0.2 25

4.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE BRIDGE DESIGNED
FOR ANALYSIS
Based on the commercial software Midas Civil, a finite element model of the bridge de-
scribed above has been established. The model takes into consideration all the components of
the bridge. This will help in investigating the overall structure behavior of the bridge. The
Figure 4.2 shows the finite element model of the bridge in Midas Civil. In order to analyze
each component of the bridge and the structural interaction between them, commercial soft-
ware called ANSYS is used as well. The superstructure and substructure components are
modeled using beam elements. The stay cables are modeled as truss elements.

Figure 4.2: FEM Model in Midas Civil

4.3 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED CABLES
Due to their nature, their similarities in appearance, and their installation method, the ex-
tradosed cables are often compared and sometimes confused to the cables used in cable-
stayed bridges to support the girder. Even though they are technologically closed, they play
very different role. However, some of analysis methods used in cable-stayed bridges can still
be applied for extradosed bridges. The purpose of this section is to provide a basic under-
standing of the structural behavior of extradosed cable. Many detailed equations and analysis
processes are available from others sources, therefore they are not provided here. Only the
equations that will facilitate the basic understanding of the structural behaviors of extradosed
cables will be provided.
Cables are flexible structures and therefore can take different curve depending on how
they are loaded. In extradosed bridges, cables are inclined and are initially axially loaded.
The simplest way to analyze such a cable structure is to associate it with a linear element hav-
ing zero rigidity and weight. This results in a constant axial force along the cable and a linear
relationship between force and displacement. Even thought this approach neglects some im-
portant phenomena like the effect of the cable self-weight and the local flexion of the cable at
anchorage, it remains an important and useful first step in stay cable structure analysis.
However, a stay cable weighs around thousands of kilogram and therefore its self-weight
cannot completely be neglected. Taking into consideration the self-weight of the cable gener-
ally produces more accurate results. The cable axial force is not constant anymore. In this ap-
proach, sag occurs due to the self-weight of the cable. Any chance in cable axial tension pro-
duces change in cable sag. These changes result in a nonlinear behavior of the cable which is
a big matter when analyzing cable structures.
4.3.1 Assumptions and General Cable Equations
Its found to be necessary to provide an analytical model that will give an accurate de-
scription of an extradosed cable. In extradosed bridge, the inclined cables hang under their
self weight and are subjected to tangential forces acting along their length. A cable in such
configuration will take the shape of a catenary curve. Therefore, it will be more accurate to
describe a cable as a catenary curve during its static analysis in extradosed bridge. However,
in some cases, an approximation method is used instead of the catenary approach based on
some assumptions. This is due to the fact that the true catenary solution is very complex. In

cable-stayed bridge, its found that a parabola curve is a good approximation for the catenary
curve under some assumptions. Below are described the basics of the catenary and parabola
approaches and their comparison.
4.3.2 Cable Behavior - Catenary Approach
In the catenary approach, an extradosed cable is assumed to have a uniformly distributed
weight along its length. Lets consider a portion of cable as shown in the Figure 4.3-a. The
length of that portion of the cable is denoted and its weight is . There is a force acting
tangentially along the cable length. The angle between and the horizontal axis is . The ca-
ble is also subjected to a horizontal force
at its lowest end. The horizontal and vertical

components of the force acting along the cable can be computed based on a free-body dia-
gram of the cable portion. The static equilibrium of the forces requires that the sum of the
force in and direction equals zero:

Figure 4.3: Cable curves

0
cos T T u =
sin ws T u =
Combining the above two equations leads to:

0
sin
tan
cos
T ws dy
T T dx
u
u
u
= = =

0
dy ws
dx T
=
l/2
V
T
ws
ds
x
y
O
T0
l/2
V
T
x
y
O
T0
x
y
f f
T0 T0
a-Catenary Approach b-Parabola Approach

Where and are coordinates of any point located on the cable.
By taking the derivative of the last equation, we have:

2
2
0
d y wds
dx T dx
=
The length of a small portion of a cable may be computed as:

2 2 2
ds dx dy = +

2
2 2
1
dy
ds dx dy dx
dx
| |
= + = +
|
\ .

2
1
ds dy
dx dx
| |
= +
|
\ .

Lets assume that
0
w
k
T
= and
dy
m
dx
= , we have:

2
1
dm
kdx
m
=
+

2
1
dm
kdx
m
=
+
} }

By integrating each side of the above equation we get:

1
arcsin ( ) h m kx A = +
Where
1
A
is integration constant and
dy
m
dx
=

According to the chosen coordinate system as show in the Fig.4.3 when 0 x = , 0
dy
m
dx
= =
and
1
0 A =
The equation becomes:
arcsin ( ) h m kx =

sin ( )
dy
m h kx
dx
= =
The integration of this equation gives the equation of the catenary shape as follows:
2
1
cos ( ) y h kx A
k
= +
Where
2
A is integration constant. When 0 x = , 0 y = and
2
1
A
k
= . The shape of the catenary
curve can then be described by the following equation:

| |
1
cos ( ) 1 y h kx
k
=
The cable sag f and the sag ratio
f
n
l
= will then be computed easily:
1
cos 1
2 2
l kl
f y h
k
( | | | |
= =
| | (
\ . \ .

1
cos 1
2
kl
n h
kl
( | |
=
| (
\ .

4.3.3 Cable Behavior - Parabola Approach
In this approach, the cable weight is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the hori-
zontal axis as shown in the Fig 4.3-b. A portion of inclined cable is considered by cutting the
horizontal chord cable at its lowest point. The cable portion is subjected to a tangential force
along its length. The angle between and the horizontal axis is . The cable is also sub-
jected to a horizontal force
at its lowest end. The horizontal and vertical components of the

force acting along the cable can be computed based on a free-body diagram of the cable por-
tion. The weight of cable portion is . The equilibrium of the cable portion requires:

0
cos T T u =
sin wx T u =
Combining the above two equations leads to:

0
sin
tan
cos
T wx dy
T T dx
u
u
u
= = =

0
dy wx
kx
dx T
= =

dy kxdx =
} }

Where
0
w
k
T
= , and are coordinates of any point located on the cable.
By integrating each side of the above equation we get the equation that describes the shape of
the parabola curve as follows:
2
1
2
y kx =
The cable sag f and the sag ratio
f
n
l
= will then be computed easily:

2
2 8
l kl
f y
| |
= =
|
\ .

8
kl
n =
4.3.4 Catenary Approach versus Parabola Approach
As shown in the Table 4.3, the parabola approach provides simpler expressions. For this
raison, the true catenary curve of an extradosed cable may be approximated to a parabola
curve under some specific assumptions.
Table 4.3: Summary of Cable Equations
Shapes Shape Func-
tion
Sag Sag Ratio Cable Length
Catenary
| |
1
cos ( ) 1 y h kx
k
=

1
cos 1
2
kl
f h
k
( | |
=
| (
\ .

1
cos 1
2
kl
n h
kl
( | |
=
| (
\ .

1
2
2
2 2 0
0
4 sinh
2
c
T lw
L b
w T
(
| |
= +
(
|
\ .
(

Parabola
2
1
2
y kx =
2
8
kl
f =
8
kl
n =
2
2
0
8
1 cos
cos 3 8
p
l wl
L
T
u
u
(
| |
( = +
|
(
\ .

The purpose is to determine the assumptions under which the parabola approach can be
applied in extradosed bridge with minimum error as Podolny did in cable stayed-bridge. The
following analysis will essentially be adapted from Construction and Design of Cable-Stayed

Bridge by Podolny and Scalzi in 1986, pp.228-230. They found that, comparing the cable
lengths computed using both approaches will provide useful information on the error commit-
ted when substituting the parabola curve to the true catenary curve in cable-stayed bridge.
The same methodology will be used here for an extradosed bridge.
The length of an inclined chord cable (see Fig 4.4) may be computed as follow:
1
2
2
2 2 0
0
4 sinh
2
c
T lw
L b
w T
(
| |
= +
(
|
\ .
(

For the catenary approach (Podolny, 1986)
2
2
0
8
1 cos
cos 3 8
p
l wl
L
T
u
u
(
| |
( = +
|
(
\ .

For the parabola approach (Podolny, 1986)
The bridge designed for the purpose of the investigation of the structural behavior of ex-
tradosed bridges and described in the section 4.1will be used to compare
c
L and
p
L . In that
typical bridge, a tower height of 15.1 meters corresponds to a span length of 54 meters (See
Figure 4.5). The difference in length between the catenary curve and the parabola curve is
computed based on the above two equations for various horizontal cable forces components
0
T . The Table 4.4 shows the results.

Figure 4.4:Inclined Cable Chord
l
V
T
x
y
O
T0
f
f'
b
c
T0
T0

Table 4.4: Cable Lengths Comparison
0
T (KN)
Catenary
c
L
(m)
Parabola
p
L
(m)
Difference
c p
L L L A =
(m)
Error /
c
L L A
(%)
200 56.15424 56.07408 0.08016109 0.1428
300 56.10825 56.07407 0.03418043 0.0609
400 56.09216 56.07406 0.01809366 0.0323
500 56.08471 56.07406 0.01064892 0.019
600 56.08066 56.07406 0.00660516 0.0118

Figure 4.5:Typical Cable Application
From the Table 4.4, it can be seen that the error made by substituting the parabola curve to
the catenary curve decreases as the horizontal component of the tension in the extradosed ca-
ble increases. For an increase from 100 KN to 500 KN in the value of T
0
, the error decreases
from 0.1428% to 0.019%. It can be concluded that the assumption under which the true cate-
nary cable curve in replaced by a parabola curve will produce minimum error is when the
horizontal component of the cable tension is larger. This is not a big matter in extradosed
bridge since the horizontal component of the cable tension is usually larger due to the small
inclination of the cables. The suitable range of cable inclination in extradosed cable should be
between 10 and 20 as suggested in the last chapter. Within this range the corresponding val-
ues of
0
T only produce small sag in the cables. Based on the Figure 4.5, the sag ratio is found
to be between 0.022 and 0.0482 in extradosed bridge. This range of sag ratio satisfies largely
l = 54 m
b = 15.1 m
c = 56 m
T0
T0

the application condition of the parabola approach which requires that the sag ratio be lesser
than 0.15 (see Figure 4.6)

Figure 4.6:Catenary Approach versus Parabola Approach (Cable sag by the quantity 2/kl)
4.3.5 Equivalent Modulus of Elasticity
In cable-stayed bridge, the cables have a nonlinear behavior as the result of their shape
variation when the stress changes. As demonstrated in the last section, a cable of cable-stayed
bridge or an extradosed cable should be accurately analyzed based on the true catenary curve.
But, since this involves very complex expressions, its better to approximate the curve of the
cable. Usually in cable-stayed bridge, to account for the nonlinearity aspect of the cable be-
havior caused by the change in cable length and sag, the cable is assumed to be a straight
member with varying modulus of elasticity. The cable curve is substituted by a straight bar
with an equivalent modulus of elasticity. The principle of equivalent modulus of elasticity has
been discussed by various authors including Ernst. He expressed the equivalent modulus of
elasticity of the cable as shown below:
( )
0
2
0 3
co
1
s
12
eq
E
E
E
s u
o
=
+

Where:
eq
E is the equivalent modulus of elasticity of inclined cables;
0
E is the cable effective modulus of elasticity;
cos s u is horizontal projected length of the cable;

is the weight per unit volume of cable and
o is the cable tensile stress.
The principle requires the system to meet the parabola assumption conditions. In extra-
dosed bridge, tower height and sag are very small. The horizontal projected lengths of the
cables are smaller compared to those of cable-stayed bridge. Therefore the equivalent modu-
lus of elasticity as estimated by Ernst is acceptable for extradosed cable as well.
4.4 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGE
GIRDER
Extradosed girders are generally subjected to permanent loads including moment due to
their dead load and normal force caused by the horizontal components of the extradosed cable
force. Under external loads, the internal loads will vary and may even cause the destruction
of the structure. Therefore, the stability of the girder should be achieved through a serious
study taking into account the load resisting capacity of the girder in each direction.
4.4.1 Girder Stiffness
The girder of an extradosed bridge should be able to transfer load locally to piers through
the assistance of the extradosed cable system. The load carrying participation of an extra-
dosed girder is determined initially based on the chosen design concept which decides on the
stiffness ratio between girder, cable and pylon. Mathivat suggested the used of very stiff gird-
er with slender Tower.
In the approach of Mathivat, the extradosed girder should be stiff enough to resist alone
the most important part of the loads, more than 60% of the total loads. This requires adequate
choice of the girder type and dimensions so that the resulting moment of inertia of girder
cross section meets the stiffness requirements of the extradosed girder. A part of the tensile
stresses caused by girder dead load moment are reduced by transferring the deck load to the
cable anchor points. The rest is carried through axial forces in the girder which are provided
by the use of prestress steel and improved by the inclined extradosed cables.
In general, the girder stiffness is a function of the material used and the moment of inertia
of the girder cross section. As the moment of inertia increases the girder stiffness increases.
The chosen girder cross-section should provide good flexural stiffness in the vertical and

transversal direction, as well as an adequate axial stiffness and torsional stiffness. But these
are also related to the overall arrangement of the bridge structure components and the sup-
porting conditions.
4.4.1.1 Flexural Stiffness
An extradosed girder as suggested by Mathivat behaves more like the girder of cantilever
constructed girder-bridge. This depends on the arrangement of the total system. The girder of
a cable supported bridge should be able to locally carry the load between cable attachment
points; able to assist the cable system in carrying the load globally and able to distribute con-
centrated forces (NIELS J. GIMSING, 2012). In extradosed bridge, the girder is supposed to
resist the loads itself. The extradosed cables assist the girder in carrying the loads. In an ex-
tradosed bridge with multi-cable system, concentrated load acting on the girder will be dis-
tributed to the nearby cables with reduced stress in the cables and the resulting magnitude of
the deflection of the girder is reduced as well. But for an extradosed bridge with few cables,
the distance between two cable attachment points is large and therefore requires the girder to
be able to resist any concentrated load without assistance of the cables. The flexural stiffness
of the extradosed girder in the vertical direction seems to be influenced by the structural ar-
rangement between him and the cable system while in the transversal direction the bending of
the girder about the vertical axis is influenced by the supporting conditions. The lateral de-
flections of a continuous extradosed girder may be higher when compared to those of a simp-
ly supported extradosed girder.
4.4.1.2 Torsional Stiffness
Under eccentric traffic load, the girder may be subjected to bending about the longitudinal
axe. The effect of this phenomenon on the girder depends on the magnitude of the eccentric
load and the cable system. In cable stayed bridge where the girder is more flexible, the tor-
sional capacity of the system depends on whether the stayed girder is supported by a central
cable plane or by two cable planes along the edges of the bridge. Its found that cable stayed
bridges with girder supported by two cable planes are more stable since the moment produced
by the eccentric load is distributed between the two cable planes. In case a central cable plane
is used, the torsional support provided with the girder by the cable system is small. In this
case its required that the girder itself resists the torsional moment without great assistance
from the cable system. Therefore a box girder is used to provide the girder with sufficient tor-
sional support.

As the extradosed bridges are derived from cantilever constructed girder-bridges which gen-
erally consist of box girders, the problem of instability of the girder due to eccentric load
wont be a big matter. Almost all of the extradosed bridges having a central cable system
consist of box girders. It will be a good design to always use a box girder when the central
cable system is adopted.
4.4.2 Dead Load Moment Distribution
Local bending moment with respect to the bridge transversal axis arises from the span be-
tween the cables. The distribution of this moment depends somehow on the cable spacing and
tension. Usually a desired dead load moment distribution is fixed and according to that, the
corresponding cable tension is determined through an iteration process. In an extradosed
bridge the magnitude of the dead load moment is smaller than that of the corresponding canti-
lever constructed girder-bridge due the force in the extradosed cables. But, in a cable-stayed
bridge the dead load moment distribution is much better when compared to that of an extra-
dosed bridge. This is due to the fact that the deck of a cable stayed bridge is lighter and the
tensions in the cables are higher.
4.5 TOWER
The tower of an extradosed bridge is relatively short. But it should have a minimum height
to meet aesthetic requirements. The concept of Mathivat does not provide the towers with too
much stiffness since the towers will only help in deviating the extradosed cables above the
deck since the purpose of the extradosed system is to improve the behavior of the girder.
Usually the tower of an extradosed bridge is designed based on the cable arrangements,
the way the girder will be suspended from the cable system and the desired prestressing mo-
ment. The tower can take any similar form as those found on cable-stayed bridges. The tower
may be made continuous with the pier or fixed with the girder.
4.5.1 Structural Behavior of the Pylons
The pylon here comprises the tower holding the cables and its corresponding pier. In ex-
tradosed bridge the tower plays the role of deviator. The extradosed cables (extradosed pre-
stressing) are deviated by the help of the towers. This increases the lever arm and the result-
ing prestressing moments are higher. Since the tensions in the extradosed cables are small,
the force components of the cables induced in the tower are also small when compared to

those of cable-stayed bridges. As the tower of an extradosed bridge is very short, the inclina-
tions of its short cables are small. This results in bigger horizontal components of the cable
tensions when compared to vertical components. Even though those forces (i.e. the compo-
nents of the tension forces in the cables) acting on the tower are small they can still affect
negatively its stability. Therefore the tower should be designed to avoid some undesired phe-
nomena like excessive bending of the top of the pylons and buckling of the tower due to
higher compressive forces. The structural behavior of the tower also depends largely on its
connections with the cables, girder and piers.
4.6 CONNECTION
The structural behavior of an extradosed bridge depends on how the structure components
are connected between them. And also the individual behavior of each component depends on
its connection with other components. The connections between components of extradosed
bridge are similar to those found on cables-stayed bridges and girder bridges. Those connec-
tions highly influence the structural behavior of the bridge. Therefore a careful study must be
conducted in order to understand how the bridge structure is affected by the structural con-
nections between members.
4.6.1 Connection between Cable and Girder
The connection between cables and girder is achieved by the use of anchorage system. The
details on anchorage system in cable-stayed bridge have been provided by many sources and
therefore will not be provided here. Its found that in a cable-stayed bridge with few cables
supporting the girder, the connections of the cables with the girder are more complicated
since the tension forces in the cables are big. Generally, for concrete girder, diaphragms are
provided at the cable anchorage points. The cable forces are transferred to the girder through
the anchorages.
In extradosed bridge, the connection between the cables and girder is similar to that of cable-
stayed bridge. But the extradosed cables are more considered as prestressing tendons. The
support of the extradosed girder does not rely too much on the cables. The girder is designed
to be able to carry a big part of the total dead load. The resulting forces in the cables are small.
The tress variation limit in the cable anchor points is higher. This allows the use of the an-
chorage system of the external prestressing tendons in extradosed bridges.

4.6.2 Connection between Cable and Tower
There are mainly two types of support used to transfer loads from the girder to the tower.
This includes an anchorage system and a saddle system. The support may be fixed or mova-
ble.
When the fixed support is adopted, the cable attachment points on the girder are only al-
lowed to move vertically. This may give rise to bending moment at the top of the tower. If a
saddle system is used with the fixed support type, the cables are made continuous as shown in
the Fig 4.7-a. But when an anchorage system is used in combination with the fixed support
type, the cables are connected as show in the Fig 4.7-c.
The movable support does not allow bending of the tower top. The application of the mova-
ble support is very rare as it reduces the structural efficiency of the system (NIELS J.
GIMSING, 2012).

Figure 4.7: Cable Connection with the Girder (NIELS J. GIMSING, 2012)

4.7 RESPONSE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES TO PERMANENT
STATE
Based on the designed extradosed bridge previously described in the section 4.1, the static
response of the bridge is investigated under permanent loads. The bridge model is modified
to get two models denoted structure A and structure B depending on the boundary conditions.
In the structure A, the girder is made fixed to the piers. The ends of the girder are allowed
to move in the longitudinal direction. The pylons of the bridge are fixed at the bases
In the structure B, the girder is simply supported on the piers. The ends of the girder and
the bases of the piers are restrained as in the structure A. In both structures the towers are
fixed to the girder but separated from the piers.

Under permanent state, the bridge is subjected to three main forces including the self-
weight of the bridge structure, the secondary dead load and the cables prestress loads. In ca-
ble-stayed bridge, the cable forces depend on the dead load of the girder but in extradosed
bridge these depend on the stiffness ratio between cable and girder. The two other loads de-
pend on the material used. Only concrete is considered here.
Its found that in the solution B, both bending moment and deflection are higher compared
to the solution A. The comparison of the two structures is shown in the Fig 4.8.1 - Fig 4.8.5.
The maximum deflections occur at middle span. When the bridge girder is fixed to piers, the
resulting axial forces are bigger than those in the released girder. But the maximum negative
moment in the released girder are better. It can be concluded that under permanent load an
extradosed behaves like a cantilever constructed girder-bridge. But its behaviors are more
improved compared to that of girder-bridge.

Figure 4.8: Fixed Girder VS Released Girder in terms of Deflection

Figure 4.9: Bending Moment in Structure A under Permanent State (KN*m)
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
-200 -100 0 100 200
G
i
r
d
e
r

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)

X Coordinates (m)
Structure B-Released
Structure A-Fixed

Figure 4.10: Bending Moment in Structure B under Permanent State (KN*m)

Figure 4.11: Axial Force in the Structure A (KN)

Figure 4.12: Axial Force in the Structure B (KN)
4.8 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
The way the different structural components of an extradosed bridge interact between
them is found to be very important. For this purpose, some parameters have been selected
including cable arrangement, side span length, girder depth, pylon height, cable inclination.
The influence of each of these parameters will be investigated.

This study will mainly base on numerical analysis. Only permanent loads will be considered.
The three spans extradosed described in the section 4.1 is modeled in the commercial soft-
ware ANSYS and is used for the analysis.
4.8.1 Influence of Cable Arrangements
In order to study the influence of cable arrangement on the static behavior of an extra-
dosed bridge, two structures have been established:
Structure 1: Fan configuration with multi-cable system
In the structure 1, all the extradosed cables are anchored at a single point on the tower.
This anchor point is located at 17.1 meter from the deck floor. The space between cable an-
chor points on the girder is constant and equals to 4 meters. The girder is simply supported
with ends free to move in the longitudinal direction.
Structure 2: Semi-fan configuration with multi-cable system
In the structure 2, the space between cable anchor points is constant and equals to 1 meter
on the tower and 4 meters on the girders. The girder supporting conditions are exactly like
those described in the structure 1.
Under permanent loads, both structure 1 and 2 present deflections similar to those found in
girder bridges. The maximum vertical deflection of the girder in structure 1 is 0.065 meter
while in the structure 2, it equals to 0.090 meter. It can be concluded that in extradosed bridg-
es the fan system is structurally better than the semi-fan one. The comparison of the two sys-
tems in terms of vertical deflection is shown in the Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.13: Fan System VS Semi-Fan System in terms of Deflection
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
-200 -100 0 100 200
G
i
r
d
e
r

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)

X Coordinate (m)
Semi-Fan System
Fan System

4.8.2 Influence of Side Span Length
The side span-to-main span ratio may affect the deflection of the extradosed girder as its
often the case in other types of bridge. To study how the side span length influences the
bridge static behavior, three structures have been established with different side span to main
span ratio (0.4, 0.5 and 0.6) as illustrated in the Figure 4.14 Under permanent load, the max-
imum vertical deflection of the main span increases as the side span-to-main span ratio in-
creases. Bigger side span length will produce higher deflections. When the side span-to-main
span ratio increases between 0.4 and 0.6, the deflection of every point on the girder also in-
crease. The maximum deflection is located in the middle span. Ratio between 0.4 and 0.6 is
acceptable but a ratio exceeding 0.8 may be critical.

Figure 4.14: Effect of Side Span Length Girder Deflection

4.8.3 Influence of Girder Depth
The extradosed cables cannot alone resist the total girder dead load therefore the girder is
required to be able to carry its self weight. The extradosed girder is found to behave like the
girder of cantilever constructed girder-bridge. The loads are resisted through flexural behav-
ior and therefore require stiff girder. As the girder stiffness is function of the moment of iner-
tia, the structural behavior of the girder may be influenced by the sizes of the cross section. It
seems then necessary to study the effect of the depth of the girder on the static behavior of the
girder. For this purpose two situations are considered: a constant girder depth and a variable
girder depth (see Figure 4.15). Its shown that a variable girder depth provides better distribu-
tion of the dead load moment.
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
G
i
r
d
e
r

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)

X Coordinates (m)
Ls/L=0.4
Ls/L=0.5
Ls/L=0.6

Figure 4.15: Effect of Girder depth on the Girder dead load Moment Distribution
4.8.4 Influence of Tower Height and Cable Inclination
The height of the tower is a very important parameter in extradosed bridge. The cable in-
clinations with the horizontal axis decrease as the tower height decreases. Several bridges
with different tower height-to-main span ratios (0.107, 0.102 and 0.122) were analyzed. The
results are illustrated in the Figure 4.16. The results show that the axial forces in the girder
increase as long as the tower height-to-main span ratio decreases but around the tower zone
the axial forces are constant. This zone is under compression. An increase of 1 meter in tower
height doesnt have any significant effect on the axial forces. Tower height to span length ra-
tio taken between 0.086 and 0.113 provides the girder with suitable capacity against bending
moment and flexure. And this range of ratio corresponds to cable inclination range of 10 to
20 degrees.

Figure 4.16: Effect of Tower Height on the Girder Axial Loads

-2E+08
-1.5E+08
-1E+08
-50000000
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
0 50 100 150 200
M
o
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

G
i
r
d
e
r

a
t

P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

S
t
a
t
e

(
K
N
*
m
)

X Coordinates (m)
Variable Depth
Constant Depth
-1.50E+08
-1.00E+08
-5.00E+07
0.00E+00
5.00E+07
0 50 100 150 200
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

G
i
r
d
e
r

(
K
N
)

X Coordinates (m)
H/L=0.107
H/L=0.102
H/L=0.122

4.9 STATIC BEHAVIOR OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES DURING
CONSTRUCTION
The structural behavior of a bridge is important during construction process as well as in
service. Therefore, in this section, investigation on static behavior of extradosed bridges un-
der permanent loads will be conducted based on the typical extradosed bridge described in
the section 4.1. The study will mainly base on the commercial software Midas Civil which
provides suitable construction stage analysis method considering creep and shrinkage. During
the erection process the bridge is assumed to be subjected to the following loads:
- Self-weight of the bridge structure
- Cable tensions
- Form traveler load
- Superimposed dead loads
- Internal prestress tendon forces
4.9.1 Erection of Extradosed Bridges
The erection of an extradosed bridge is a very complex task due to its structural complexi-
ty and change in load conditions during the erection process. The erection method is similar
to that of cable-stayed bridge since both have almost same structure configuration. During the
design process of any bridge, the construction method is chosen based on the available con-
struction equipments, economy requirements and the selected bridge type. Extradosed bridges
are usually erected by the cantilever method. Only the cantilevering method will be discussed
since this method is found to be preferred for the construction of extradosed bridges. The
main steps are illustrated in the Figure 4.17:

Figure 4.17: Stages in Free Cantilever Method (Marko Justus Grabow, 2004)

Stage 1: Erection of the towers, piers and girder segment zero. The segment zero should be
large enough to hold two form travelers (or derrick cranes), one at each side of the tower.
Stage 2: Installation of the forms travelers (or derrick cranes). Erection of the girder seg-
ments until the cable supported zone. The use of forms travelers or derrick cranes depends on
whether the girder segments are pre-casted or built in-situ. In case the segments are built on
construction site, the internal prestress tendons are installed and tensioned as their erection
progresses (see fig4.13)
Stage 3: Erection of the cable supported girder segments. Installation and tensioning of
the extradosed cables. Cable tuning will not be required.
Stage 4: Key segments closure

Figure 4.18: Construction stage cycle (from Midas)
The construction sequences have been simulated in Midas Civil. The static behavior of the
bridge has been appreciated based on the deflection of the extradosed girder. The moment of
the girder during the construction sequences are shown in the Figure 4.19 to Figure 4.23.
Analysis of the change in girder internal force during construction sequences show that ex-
tradosed bridges and girder bridges have similar structural behavior during construction. This
is understandable since the only structural difference between these two types of bridge is the
extradosed cables. At each construction stage, the bending moment and the deflection of the
girder are all better compared to that of a corresponding girder bridge. This was expected
since the large eccentricity of the extradosed prestressing will reduce the moment in the gird-
er.

Figure 4.19: Moment Diagram at Stage 3




Figure 4.23: Moment Diagram at Key Segments Closure


Chapter 5 DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF
EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the dynamic response of extradosed bridges.
But first the general theory and basic dynamic equations will be provided for the purpose of
basic understanding of mechanical dynamic phenomena. And then, the dynamic effect of
several parameters on the dynamic behavior of extradosed bridges will be investigated based
on a typical extradosed bridge free vibration and its dynamic response to vehicle live loads.
Seismic effects, earthquake effects, wind effects and effects of irregularities in road surface
are not discussed here.
5.1 GENERAL THEORY OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
The bridge structure components are often subjected to varying loads due to vehicular traffic.
Other sources of varying loads on bridge structures are earthquake, wind and wave actions.
Since the loads vary with time, the response of the bridge components to these loads is also
time-dependent. When a dynamic force is applied to a bridge structure, two important inter-
nal forces take place namely the inertia forces and the damping forces. The inertia forces re-
sist the acceleration of the structure while the damping forces are proportional to the structure
velocity.
5.1.1 Basic Equations of Structural Dynamics
5.1.1.1 Free Vibration
For a Single-Degree-of-Freedom system subjected to a time-varying force (), the equation
of motion can be written as follow:
( )
mx cx kx f t + + =

Where m is the dynamic system mass, c is the damping ratio and k is the stiffness.
When during motion the force () , the system is said to be in free vibration. The above
equation becomes:

0 mx cx kx + + =
Or
2
2 0 x wx w x + + =


Where
2
c
w
m
=
and
2
k
w
m
=

5.1.1.2 Undamped Free Vibration
For the undamped free vibration system, the damping ratio equals zero and the equation of
motion becomes:
2
0 x w x + =
; cos sin x A wt B wt = +
Where A and B are constants of integration.
/ w k m =
is the natural frequency of vibration.
The natural period of vibration is:

2
2
m
T
w k
t
t = =

Figure 5.1: Undamped Free Vibration Motion (ICE, 2008)
5.1.1.3 Damped Free Vibration
When the system is damped the solution of the equation of motion is found to be as follow:
( ) ( )
1 2
exp exp x A t B t o o = +

Where:
( )
2
1
1 w o = +
and
( )
2
2
1 w o =
. A and B are constants of inte-
gration. The frequency of the vibration in this case is as follow:

2
1
d
w w =

The time required for the system to complete one cycle is:

2
2 2
1
d
d
m
T
w k
t t
= =

Figure 5.2: Damped Free Vibration Motion (ICE, 2008)
The vibration motion will depend on
2
c
mk
=
. Figure 5.3 shows the motions of different
values of .

Figure 5.3: Vibration Motion for Various Damping Ratios (Bavirisetty, 2000)


5.1.2 Natural Frequency of Bridge
The natural frequency is one of the most important dynamic characteristics in the study of
bridge dynamic response. The bridge natural frequency is the frequency at which a bridge
vibrates freely once its set into motion. It is the number of cycles per second.
5.2 FREE VIBRATION OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES-
PARAMETRIC STUDY
In order to understand the dynamic behavior of extradosed bridges, parametric study has been
conducted based on numerical analysis by considering a 3D linear elastic finite element mod-
el of an extradosed bridge whose natural frequencies and mode shapes are shown respectively
in the Table 5.1 and Figure 5.4 to 5.8. The natural frequencies are found to be higher than that
of a typical cable stayed bridge. But the vibration amplitudes are very smaller compared to
that of cable stayed bridge. This aspect may be related to the system mass and stiffness. Fre-
quent vibration with very small amplitude as it is the case in extradosed bridges may be ac-
ceptable since this is found to not have any significant bad influence on the structure safety.
But over a certain limit of frequency this can become critical and lead to discomfort of pas-
sengers.
Table 5.1: Natural Frequencies
Mode
Natural Frequencies (Hz)
Vibration Mode Type
1 0.6450 First Vertical Mode
2 1.1670 Second Vertical Mode
3 1.9131 Third Vertical Mode
4 2.1260 First Torsional Mode
5 2.4524 Second Torsional Mode
6 2.7759 Third Torsional Mode
7 2.8027 First Lateral Mode
8 3.0115 Second Lateral Mode

9 3.1042 Third Lateral Mode
10 3.4106 Fourth Torsional Mode

Figure 5.4: First Mode Shape

Figure 5.5: Second Mode Shape

Figure 5.6: Third Mode Shape

Figure 5.7: Fourth Mode Shape

Figure 5.8: Fifth Mode Shape
The effect of various parameters on the bridge dynamic response has been investigated. The-
se parameters include tower height, side span length, girder depth and connection between
deck and tower.
Firstly, the influence of the tower height on the bridge dynamic response in free vibration was
investigated. Three bridge models have been established with different tower heights (14.3 m,
15.1 m, and 17.1 m). The vertical deflections of the center of the bridge have been examined.
In the first three modes there is a difference in the deflections but the deflection values vary
in the same range as shown in the Figure 5.9. From the third to thirtieth mode, there is no sig-
nificant different of the deflections for the three models. It can be concluded that the tower
height does not have any significant direct influence on the free vibration motion of an extra-
dosed bridge. This is normal since in a stiff girder extradosed bridge the load carrying system
does not depend too much on the tower.

Figure 5.9: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Tower Heights
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

M
i
d
s
p
a
n

(
m
)

Modes
H=14.3 m
H=17.1 m
H=15.1 m

Secondly, the effect of side span length was investigated based on three models with different
side span-to-main span ratios (0.4, 0.5, and 0.6). The vertical deflections of the main span
center in each model have been computed and compared as show in the Figure 5.10. From the
Figure 5.10, it can be seen that, as the side span-to-main span ratio increases the vertical de-
fection also increases. The vibration amplitudes are all smaller compared to those found in
the free vibration of cable-stayed bridge. The side span-to-main span ratio has a significant
influence on the free vibration motion of an extradosed bridge. A side span length of approx-
imately half of the main span length produces better response to free vibration.
Next, it was interesting to know how the girder depth influences the dynamic behavior of an
extradosed bridge in free vibration. Two configurations were considered: a constant depth
and a variable depth. The comparison of the two configurations is show in the Figure 5.10.
The vertical deflections are higher in the model that uses variable girder depth. The model
with constant depth produces smaller deflections but produces more negative deflections.

Figure 5.10: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Side Span-to-Main Span Ratios

Figure 5.11: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Girder Depths
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

M
i
d
s
p
a
n

(
m
)

Modes
Ls/L=0.4
Ls/L=0.5
Ls/L=0.6
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

M
i
d
s
p
a
n

(
m
)

Modes
Constant Depth
Variable Depth

Finally, the effect of cable arrangement and connection between girder and piers are investi-
gated. The vertical defection of the main span center does not show any significant effect.
Examination of the deflection of the side span show slight difference at the first modes as
show in the Figure 5.12 and 5.13.

Figure 5.12: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Cable Arrangement Systems

Figure 5.13: Dynamic Vertical Deflections for various Girder-to-Pier Connections
5.3 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGE TO
TRAFFIC LIVE LOADS
Bridges are usually designed to carry moving vehicles. The interaction vehicle-bridge has
always been a complex task due to the random time loading of the vehicles and the complexi-
ty of the contact between vehicles and bridge deck. A bridge subjected to vehicle moving
load can lead to dynamic accelerations and deflections of the bridge girder causing damage to
the bridge or discomfort to bridge users. Therefore, the dynamic response of every type of
bridge should be understood.
In order to understand the dynamic response of extradosed bridges to moving vehicle load, an
investigation was conducted based on numerical analysis using a 3D finite element linear
elastic model. The bridge model used here is as described in the section 3.1. A moving load
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0 10 20 30 40
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

S
i
d
e

S
p
a
n

M
i
d
d
l
e

Modes
Fan System
Semi Fan System
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
V
e
r
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

S
i
d
e

S
p
a
n

C
e
n
t
e
r

Modes
Simple Supported
Fixed

model was adopted where the vehicle maximum axle load is approximated to 200KN. The
model consists of triangular time-history load as shown in the Figure 5.14. This model is
found to be suitable for the study since the objective is not to analyze the vehicle dynamics
but to investigate the dynamic behavior of the bridge.

Figure 5.14: Moving Load Model
Where t
1
= i
th
element length/vehicle speed, t
2
= (i+1)
th
element length/vehicle speed. The el-
ement lengths are as defined in the finite element model used for the numerical method.
The response of an extradosed bridge to the passage of a vehicle of 200KN at 80km/h was
examined in terms of dynamic vertical displacement of the girder, bending moment of the
girder and axial force in the extradosed cables. The Figure 5.15 shows the displacement of
the bridge under a vehicle load moving at 80km/h from left to right. A maximum downward
displacement of 8.951 mm and maximum upward displacement of 0.5521 mm were recorded.
Its found that the maximum displacement occurs at the center of the bridge. The bending
moment in the girder has an upward maximum value of 4673 KN.m and a maximum down-
ward moment of 1174 KN.m (see Figure 5.16). The Figure 5.17 shows the cable axial force
response. The computed variations in axial force in the cables are better than those found on
cable-stayed bridge.
According to the above discussion, it can be concluded that the dynamic behavior of extra-
dosed bridge should always take into consideration the dynamic interaction between bridge
and vehicles.

Figure 5.15: Maximum Vertical Displacement due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80
km/h

Figure 5.16: Moment Envelope due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80 km/h

Figure 5.17: Cable Axial Force Response due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 80 km/h
5.4 EFFECT OF VEHICLE SPEED ON THE DYNAMIC
RESPONSE OF EXTRADOSED BRIDGES
The influence of the vehicle speed on the dynamic response of extradosed bridge was invest i-
gated for three different speeds (60km/h, 80km/h and 120km/h). The vertical displacement
and the acceleration of the girder corresponding to each vehicle speed were computed. The
Figure 5.18 to 5.20 show the vertical displacements of the center of the bridge for various ve-
hicle speeds. Its found that both maximum vertical displacement and maximum bending

moment increase as the vehicle speed increase. An increase of 33% in vehicle speed produces
2.75% increase in bending moment.

Figure 5.18: Vertical Displacement due to passage of a vehicle of 200 KN at 60 km/h



In order to determine the significance of the influence of the vehicle speed on the dynamic
response of the bridge a comparison analysis was conducted. The bridge static response to
traffic vehicle load was compared to its dynamic response to traffic vehicle load. For the stat-
ic moving vehicle load analysis, an impact factor of 0.492 was adopted according to the Chi-
nese General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG D60-2004). The results
are shown in the Table 5.2. During the vibration of the bridge under moving vehicle loads the
center of the bridge undergoes displacements that are slightly higher than those produced
from the bridge static response under vehicle loads.
Table 5.2: Static Response VS Maximum Dynamic Response
Components
Static Response Dynamic Response
Impact Factor = 0.492 60 km/h 80 km/h 120 km/h
Displacement
(mm)
5.114 8.924 8.951 8.959
Moment (KN.m) 4698 4516 4673 4805


Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
This chapter summarizes the most important issues discussed in this study and provides rec-
ommendations that may be useful for bridge engineers or researchers.
6.1 CONCLUSION
In this study, an extradosed bridge is defined as a cantilever constructed girder bridge with
extradosed prestressing. An extrodosed prestressing is an innovative prestressing technology
introduced to the world of prestressed concrete bridge by the French engineer Jacques
Mathivat in 1988. Two important parameters may characterize an extradosed prestressing
namely the cable allowable stress and the height of deviation point of the cable above the
deck. An extradosed cable should have an allowable stress around

and its deviation
point on the tower should be fixed at 0.086L (or between 0.086L and 0.113L)
Extradosed bridge can be designed with stiff girder or stiff tower depending on the assistance
of the extradosed cables to the deck. The stiff girder extradosed brigde has been more dis-
cussed in this study. It consists of an internally prestressed girder whose segments are com-
pressed one against other with the help of extradosed cables. Its found that to improve the
structural behavior of the girder against bending moment, the extradosed cables should have
inclination angles between 10 and 20 degrees.
Investigation based on parametric analysis showed that the static behavior of extradosed gird-
er may be affected by the parameters such as tower height, side span length, girder depth, ca-
ble arrangement and connection between girder and piers. As long as the tower height de-
creases, the cable inclination also decreases and the bridge behaves more like a girder bridge
rather than a cable-stayed bridge due to the nature of the assistance of the extradosed cables
to the girder. It was then concluded that a stiff girder extradosed bridge statically behaves like
a cantilever constructed girder bridge.
Its also found that the natural frequencies of extradosed bridges are higher compared to those
found in cable-stayed bridge free vibration but the corresponding vibration amplitudes are
small. Under vehicle moving load, extradosed bridges undergo displacements which are

closed to L/15000. These displacements are affected by the side span-to-main span ratio.
Suitable ratio should be around 0.6L.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORKS
Two main design approaches are available for the design of extradosed bridges namely the
stiff girder approach and the stiff tower approach. But only the stiff girder approach has been
discussed in this work. As future work, an investigation of the static and dynamic behavior of
extradosed bridges using the stiff tower approach is suggested. Also the results provided in
this research work are based on analytical and numerical methods and therefore require an-
other study which combines analytical methods, numerical methods and laboratory tests.


REFERENCES
1 Steven Steven L. Stroh, On the Development of the Extradosed Bridge Concept,
PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engi-
neering, University of South Florida, 2012.
2 Kasuga A., Extradosed Bridges in Japan. Structural Concrete, 7(3), 91-103, 2006.
3 Jos Benjumea, Gustavo Chio, Esperanza Maldonado, Structural behavior and de-
sign criteria of extradosed bridges: general insight and state of the art, Industrial
University of Santander, Bucaramanga, COLOMBIA, 2010.
4 Konstantinos Kris Mermigas, Behaviour and design of extradosed bridges, Master
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada,
2008.
5 Chio G., Comportamiento Estructural y Criterios de Diseo de los Puentes con
Pretensado Extradosado. Tesis Doctoral.Barcelona, Universidad Politcnica de Ca-
talua, 2000.
6 Vincent T. H. CHU, 200 Questions and Answers on Pratical Civil Engineerign
Works, book, 2005.
7 Parsons Brinckerhoff, St. Croix River Crossing Preliminary Engineering Concept
Refinement Report, Design of St. Croix River Crossing, 2010.
8 Paul Bott, Innovations in Bridge Design and Construction, HDR Engineering,
2012.
9 Jan Biliszczuk; Wojciech Barcik, Contemporary Concrete Bridges Built in Poland
in 2005 2010, fib Symposium prague 2011, Concrete Engineering for Excellence
and Efficiency, 2011.
10 S Ikeda, A Kasuga, Development of extradosed structures in the bridge construc-
tion, Yokohama National University, Japan , 25th Conference on our world in con-
crete & structures, singapore, 2000.
11 Podolny W. ,Scalzi, Construction and Design of Cable-Stayed Bridge, 1986
12 Marko Justus Grabow, Construction Stage Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridges, The-
sis, Faculty of the Technical University of Hamburg, Germany, 2004
13 Niels J. Gimsing,Christos T. Georgakis, Cable Supported Bridges: Concept and
Design, Third Edition, Department of Civil Engineering Technical University of
Denmark,2012

14 Qian Li, Kehai Wang, Zhenyu Jiang, Discussion on Dynamic Characteristics of Ex-
tradosed Cable-stayed Bridge, Research Institute of Highway, the Ministry of
Communications of P. R. China, No.8, Xitucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing,
China, 100088, 2002.
15 Jang Seok Yi, Eu Kyeong Cho, Mo Seh Kim, Jae Kwan Kim, three-dimensional
topographic effects on the seismic response of a extradosed bridge, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004.
16 Dong-Ho Choi and Wan-Soon Park, Tension Force Estimation of Extradosed
Bridge Cables Oscillating Nonlinearly under Gravity Effects, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seong-
dong-gu, Seoul 133-791, Korea, 2011.
17 Cheng Haiqian, Yang Ping, CT Model Experimental Research on Cable Saddle
Zone of Extradosed Bridge, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei,
430063, China, 2011.
18 Christian Glser, Werner Brand, Requirements on tendons for extradosed bridges,
fib Symposium prague 2011, Session 2B-2: Construction Technology, 2011.
19 Wen-Chen Jau, Si-Hui Li, The monitoring of an extra-dosed bridge, the Rationale
and Design, Department of Civil Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University,
Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.
20 Abu Saleh Md Nuruzzaman, Lessons learnt from the design and construction of
Third Karnaphuli Bridge: The first extradose cable stayed bridge of Bangladesh,
Roads and Highways Department, Bangladesh and Project Manager, Third Karna-
phuli Bridge Project, IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engi-
neering-II, August 8-10, 2010, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
21 Takahiro Kakuta, Extradosed Bridges & RecentPrecastBridge Technologies in
Japan, 14thAnnual Caltrans/PCMAC Bridge Seminar, Japan.
22 Congchun Chen, Haizhi Zhou, Rucheng Xiao, Recent Research Advancement of
Extradosed Cable-Stayed Bridge, Journal, World Bridges, 2006.
23 Kumarasena, Sena, A Comparison of Cable-Stayed vs. Extradosed Bridges, Sixth
International Bridge Engineering Conference: Reliability, Security, and Sustainability
in Bridge Engineering. July 17-20, 2005.

24 Ogawa, A. and Kasuga, A. , Extradosed bridges in Japan., FIP Notes, Japan, 1998.
25 Mathivat Jacques, Lvolution rcente des ponts en bton prcontraint, Festschrift
Christian Menn zum 60 Geburtstag, ETH Zurich, 1987.
26 Mathivat Jacques, Recent developments in prestressed concrete bridges, FIP Notes,
1988.
27 Virlogeux, M., Recent Evolution of Cable-Stayed Bridges, Engineering Structures,
1999
28 Virlogeux, M., New Trends in Prestressed Concrete Bridges, Transportation Re-
search Record, 2000
29 Virlogeux, M., New trends in prestressed concrete bridges, Structural Concrete,
2002
30 Virlogeux, M., Les ponts haubans : lefficacit technique allie llgance
architecturale, 2002
31 Walther, R.., Development of Modern Cable-Stayed Bridges, International confer-
ence A.I.P.C, 1994
32 Wheeler, K., Lothringer, S. and Bennett, M, Glebe Island Bridge - Australias New
Cable-Stayed Bridge, International conference A.I.P.C.--F.I.P, 1994
33 Yasukawa, Y., Miyauchi, H., Kato, H. and Nakazono, A, Planning and Design of
Rittoh Bridge, Proceedings of the 1st fib Congress: Concrete Structures for the 21st
Century, Osaka, Japan., 2002
34 Mathivat Jacques, The Cantilever Construction of Prestressed Concrete Bridges.
(English translation by C. J. M. Emberson). Pitman Press Ltd., Bath, Avon, 1983.
35 , J,2005(7)
36 , 2002.
37 , , , 2007
38 , , ,
2005
39 , ,
, , 2011
40 ,, , , ,
2007
41 , , , . , , 2002
42 , , . , ,
1996

43 , , , , ,
1999
44 , , : , 2003
45 , , , , 2006
46 , , , , , , 2006
47 , , , :
, 2007
48 , JTG D60-2004.
49 , JTJ 027-96.
50 , JTG D622004.
51 , JTJ025-86.

Static and Dynamic Behavior of Extradosed Bridges - Koffi

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Static and Dynamic Behavior of Extradosed Bridges - Koffi

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

U448.

. h and La are in meter.)

; k = 1, 2, 3 .n ; k and n are respectively cable number and number of

with L the main span length.

) of attachment point of the first

the height of the k

) of the first cable should not exceed 0.33 radians or

) between 0.025L and 0.034L.

) is usually limited by different specification as follow:

in a cable at middle span can be expressed as

is the vertical reaction produced at the attachment point of cable k and

of the force in the cable k will be:

which can be computed by ignoring the bending

for cantilever constructed

(in meter), both

at its lowest end. The horizontal and vertical

at its lowest end. The horizontal and vertical components of the

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen