Aerodynamic Stability of Ultra-Long Span Cable-Suspension Bridges

Aerodynamic Stability of Ultra-Long Span Cable-Suspension
Bridges
By
Ezz El-Din Kamel Mohamed Ali
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctorate of Philosophy
In
Structural Engineering
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2016

Bridges
By

In
Under the Supervision of
Dr. Ahmed Mahmoud Saleh
Dr. Walid Abdellatif Attia
Professor, Structural Engineering
Dr. Eehab Ahmed Badreldin Khalil


GIZA, EGYPT
2016

Bridges
By
In
Approval by the Examining Committee
Prof. Dr., Ahmed Mahmoud Saleh Advisor

Cairo University, Faculty of Engineering
_____________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dr. Walid Abdellatif Attia, Thesis Main Advisor
_____________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dr.EEhab Ahmed BadrEldin Khalil, Advisor
Construction research Institute, National Water Research center
_____________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dr., Adel Akl
______________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Dr., Osman Shalan
Zagazig University, Faculty of Engineering

GIZA, EGYPT
2016
Engineer:
Date of Birth:
Nationality:
E-mail:
Phone:
Address:
Registration Date:
Awarding Date:
Degree:
Department:

4/8/1987
Egyptian
ee.k.mohamed@gmail.com
0235617127 01227005403
12 AlAdkhar Street Giza
1/ 10 /2012
22/ 4/2016
Doctorate of Philosophy
Structural Department
Supervisors:
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Mahmoud Saleh

Prof. Dr. Walid Abdel Lafif Attia
Prof. Dr. EEhab Ahmed Badereldin Khalil Construction Research
Institute National Water Research Center
Examiners:
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Mahmoud Saleh

Prof. Dr. Walid Abdel Lafif Attia
Prof. Dr. EEhab Ahmed Badereldin Khalil
Prof. Dr. Adel Akl Cairo University
Prof. Dr. Osman Shalan Zagazig University
Title of Thesis:
AERODYNAMIC STABILITY OF ULTRA-LONG SPAN CABLE SUSPENSION
BRIDGE
Key Words:
(Cable-Stayed Bridges; Bridge Aerodynamics; CFD simulation; Flutter Analysis; Flutter

Derivatives)
Summary:
Deck shape determines the aerodynamic forces acting on bridges. The present study
focuses on minimizing aerodynamic forces by optimizing deck shape. Computational
fluid dynamic (CFD) is an effective numerical tool for simulating flow around bridge
deck, which was verified in literature. In this study six deck cross sections were studied
and their generated aerodynamic forces were compared with forces acting on Sutong
Bridge Also, stability and structural analysis for ultra-span bridge performed using cablesuspension bridge system
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude and appreciation to my advisors, Prof. Ahmed
Mahmoud Saleh, Prof. Walid Abdel Latif and Prof. Eehab Khalil for thier guidance,
encouragement, and patience throughout the completion my thesis work.
I owe my deepest gratitude to Assoc. Prof Basman Elhadidy, support to develop Ansys models
and revise the aerodynamic part of the study.
I know that I could not have completed this project without the support of my family. Not only
did you both offer me loads of moral support, but you helped me finding the strength to continue
my work here and helped me come to the decision, once and for all.
And of course, I want to thank all of those whose love makes the difference in my life. To my
family, for being the light, joy, and fuel of my existence and for being my constant inspiration
and support.
Abstract
Suspension bridges are longest span structures, however, the major problem of those structures
are its stability under wind loads. The stability of those bridges depends majorly on aerodynamic
forces and structural supporting system; this study worked on those two major axes.
Aerodynamic axis was to minimize aerodynamic forces by optimizing deck shape.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) is an effective numerical tool for simulating flow around
bridge deck, which was verified in the literature. six deck cross sections were studied three
elliptical deck shapes and three closed trusses-; their generated aerodynamic forces were
compared with forces acting on Sutong Bridge and the best one was modelled as unsteady- state
model for calculating flutter derivatives. The elliptical deck shape is found to generate the least
static pressure and aerodynamic forces relative to the box and closed truss shapes; that proves, as
deck shape get smoother aerodynamic forces generated by the deck reduces
Structural axis was to improve the stability of cable supporting system. A combination of threedimensional suspension cable and cable-stay systems studied. Catenary theory was improved for
determining three-dimensional suspension cable profile. Three models suspension bridge and
eight models cable-stayed suspension cable were studied. The use of three-dimensional
suspension cable improved critical wind speed.
ii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... i
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 History of Cable Bridges. ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1. Ancient cable bridges. .................................................................................................. 1
1.2.2. Cable bridges in recent century. ................................................................................... 7
1.3. Objective of the thesis ....................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Summary of Chapters ......................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 16
2.0. History of Aerodynamics................................................................................................... 16
2.1. Aerodynamic. .................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1. Static Body: ................................................................................................................ 18
2.1.2. Vortex-Induced vibrations (VIV) ............................................................................... 20
2.2. Tacoma effect. ................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.Aeroelasticity ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.2. Flutter................................................................................................................................. 25
2.3. Wind tunnel and Experimental work. ................................................................................ 25
2.3.1. Section testing ............................................................................................................ 26
2.3.2. Full-scale Model. ........................................................................................................ 28
2.2.1 Flutter Numerical Analysis .............................................................................................. 29
2.2.1.1. Thendarson Theory. ................................................................................................ 29
2.2.3. Scalan Theory. ............................................................................................................ 31
2.2.4. Sleberg's Equation. ..................................................................................................... 32
2.4. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) ............................................................................... 33
iii
2.4.1. Governing Equations .................................................................................................. 34

2.4.2. CFD System ............................................................................................................... 35
2.5 Previous studies work ......................................................................................................... 37
2.5.1. Numerical studied on the evaluation of aerodynamic force coefficients of the cable
stay bridge deck. ................................................................................................................... 37
2.5.2. Numerical Simulation for Aerodynamic Derivatives of a Bridge Deck. ................... 41
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 44
Innovating Aerodynamic Deck shape ........................................................................................... 44
3.0. Introduction. ...................................................................................................................... 44
3.1. Deck Shape optimization. .................................................................................................. 44
3.1.1. Truss Girder................................................................................................................ 44
3.1.2. Box girder:.................................................................................................................. 45
3.2. Developing Deck Shape .................................................................................................... 47
3.2.1. Shape 1 (Elliptical Cross-Section) ............................................................................. 48
3.2.2. Shape 2 (Elliptical cross-section with 2m gap) .......................................................... 48
3.2.3. Shape 3 ....................................................................................................................... 48
3.2.4. Shape 4 ....................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.5. Shape 5 ....................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.6. Shape 6 ....................................................................................................................... 50
3.2.7. Sutong Bridge deck .................................................................................................... 50
3.3. CFD Modeling ................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.1. Domain decomposition: ............................................................................................. 51
3.3.2. Meshing: ..................................................................................................................... 53
3.4. Flutter Analysis.................................................................................................................. 54
3.4.1. Domain Decomposition method................................................................................. 56
3.4.2. Motion Amplitude ...................................................................................................... 57
3.4.3. Proposed DECK 3: ..................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 59
Aerodynamic Results .................................................................................................................... 59
4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 59
4.2. Static aerodynamic analysis............................................................................................... 59
iv
4.2. Flutter derivatives calculation ........................................................................................... 75

4.3. Elliptical deck design......................................................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................. 98
Innovating ultra-long span bridge ................................................................................................. 98
5.0. Introduction. ...................................................................................................................... 98
5.1.1. Box girder. .................................................................................................................. 98
5.1.2. Truss girder ................................................................................................................ 98
5.1. Elliptical deck shape design .............................................................................................. 98
5.1.1. Deck dimensions ........................................................................................................ 99
5.1.2. Elliptical deck statical system .................................................................................. 101
5.1.3 Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 102
5.1.4. Loads ........................................................................................................................ 103
5.1.5. Deck Modeling ......................................................................................................... 106
5.1.6. Deck properties calculation ...................................................................................... 108
5.2. Cable systems .................................................................................................................. 110
5.2.1. Cable stays bridges. .................................................................................................. 110
5.2.2. Suspension system.................................................................................................... 113
5.2.3. Hybrid system. ......................................................................................................... 114
5.3. Bridge modeling. ............................................................................................................. 114
5.3.1. Modeling criteria. ..................................................................................................... 115
5.3.2. Suspension cable profile. ......................................................................................... 115
5.4. Parametric study. ............................................................................................................. 122
5.4.1. Suspension bridge .................................................................................................... 123
5.4.2. Ultra-long span bridge .............................................................................................. 125
CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................... 132
Structural analysis results ........................................................................................................... 132
6.1. Suspension bridges. ......................................................................................................... 132
6.2. Hybrid Cable Bridge ........................................................................................................ 144
CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................... 159
Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 159
7.1. Summary.......................................................................................................................... 159
v
7.2. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 159

7.3. Future work...................................................................................................................... 160
References ................................................................................................................................... 162
vi
List of Figures
Figure (1.1) Rope bridge. ................................................................................................................ 2
Figure (1.2) Inca bridge .................................................................................................................. 2
Figure (1.3) Jacob's Creek Bridge.................................................................................................. 3
Figure (1.4) Winch Bridge (1830) .................................................................................................. 4
Figure (1.5) The Szchenyi Chain Bridge ...................................................................................... 5
Figure (1.6) Brooklyn Bridge (1883). ............................................................................................. 5
Figure (1.7) Brooklyn Bridge Tower .............................................................................................. 6
Figure (1.8) Tacoma Bridge cross section. ..................................................................................... 7
Figure (1.9) Tacoma Bridge view. .................................................................................................. 7
Figure (1.10) Sutong Bridge ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure (1.11) Span arrangements. ................................................................................................... 8
Figure (1.12) Sutong Bridge Cross section. .................................................................................... 9
Figure (1.13) Sutong Bridge Pylon. ................................................................................................ 9
Figure (1.14) The Rion-Antirion Bridge. ...................................................................................... 10
Figure (1.15) The Rion-Antirion Bridge spans arrangements. ..................................................... 10
Figure (1.16) The Rion-Antirion Bridge Cross section. ............................................................... 10
Figure (1.17) The Rion-Antirion Bridge Cross section details. .................................................... 11
Figure (1.20) Proposed Messina bridge cross sections ................................................................. 13
Figure (1. 21) Proposed Gibraltar Bridge ..................................................................................... 14
Figure (2.1) Da Vinci helicopter ................................................................................................... 16
Figure (2.2) Inclined Plate Forces Sketch. .................................................................................... 17
Figure (2.3) Boundary layer (thesis ref. 7). .................................................................................. 18
Figure (2.4) Reynolds number effect on drag forces (thesis ref. 7). ............................................. 19
Figure (2.5) Reynolds number effect on drag forces. ................................................................... 19
Figure (2.6) Flow separation sketch for bluff body ...................................................................... 20
Figure (2.7) B/D effect for the bluff body with sharp edges. ....................................................... 20
Figure (2.8) Tacoma Bridge Oscillating. ...................................................................................... 21
Figure (2.9) Tacoma Oscillation (torsional mode shape) ............................................................. 22
Figure (2.10) Tacoma collapse. .................................................................................................... 22
Figure (2.11) Tacoma after collapsing. ......................................................................................... 23
Figure (2.12) Collar's aeroelastic triangle. .................................................................................... 24
Figure (2.13) Aerodynamic forces acting on the bridge with angle of attack ........................... 26
Figure (2.14) Deck supporting sketch for aeroelastic wind tunnel testing (Bridge aeroelasticity).
....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure (2. 15) Full-scale model ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure (2. 16) Degrees of freedom for bridge deck or airfoil. ...................................................... 29
Figure (2.17) Movement considered for the thin plate. ................................................................ 30
Figure (2.18) Real and imaginary parts of the Theodorsen function ............................................ 31
vii
Figure (2.19) Comparison between measured critical flutter speed and Selberg prediction ........ 33
Figure (2.20) CFD simulation methodology................................................................................. 35
Figure (2.21) A rectangular box solution domain (LxD) .............................................................. 36
Figure (2. 22) cross section of the bridge deck and the sign convention for force ....................... 38
Figure (2. 23) Tested Setup in Wind Tunnel with 0o wind ........................................................... 38
Figure (2. 24) variation of mean drag coefficient with wind angle. ............................................. 39
Figure (2. 25) variation of mean lift coefficient with wind angle. ................................................ 40
Figure (2. 26) variation of mean Moment coefficient with wind angle. ....................................... 41
Figure (2. 27) Domain Decomposition ......................................................................................... 42
Figure (2. 28) Geometry of studied sections used in the present study ........................................ 43
Figure (3. 1) Drag coefficient for a truss section and streamlined box section. ........................... 45
Figure (3. 2) Influence of streaming box section on drag forces .................................................. 46
Figure (3. 3) Drag forces for symmetric and non-symmetric shapes ........................................... 46
Figure (3. 4) Lift forces for the symmetric and non-symmetric airfoil. ....................................... 47
Figure (3. 5) Width over depth ratio effect. .................................................................................. 47
Figure (3. 6) streamlining effect on drag forces. .......................................................................... 47
Figure (3. 7) Proposed DECK 1 Cross section. ............................................................................ 48
Figure (3. 8) Proposed DECK 2 Cross section. ............................................................................ 48
Figure (3. 9) Proposed DECK 3 Cross section ............................................................................. 49
Figure (3. 10) Proposed DECK 4 Cross section ........................................................................... 49
Figure (3. 13) Sutong bridge deck ................................................................................................ 50
Figure (3. 15) CFD model for Proposed Deck 1. .......................................................................... 51
Figure (3. 21) Shows drag coefficient for studied deck shaped. ................................................... 54
Figure (3. 22) Shows Domain Decomposition ............................................................................. 56
Figure (3. 23) CFD model for determining flutter derivatives. .................................................... 57
Figure (4. 1) Deck shape 1 streamline (3D view) ......................................................................... 59
Figure (4. 2) Deck shape 1air streamlines (2D view). .................................................................. 60
Figure (4. 3) Deck shape 1 air flow vectors (2D view) ................................................................ 60
Figure (4. 5) Deck shape 1 Pressure distribution around. ............................................................. 61
Figure (4. 6) Deck shape 1 velocity distribution around. ............................................................. 62
viii
Figure (4. 7) Deck shape 2 air streamlines (2D view). ................................................................. 62

Figure (4. 9) Deck shape 2 Pressure distribution around. ............................................................. 63
Figure (4. 10) Deck shape 2 velocity distribution around. ........................................................... 64
Figure (4. 11) Deck shape 3 air streamlines (3D view). ............................................................... 64
Figure (4. 12) Deck shape 3 air flow vectors (2D view) .............................................................. 65
Figure (4. 13) Deck shape 3 Pressure distribution around. ........................................................... 65
Figure (4. 15) Deck shape 6 pressure distribution around for the angle of attack -10 degree. ..... 66
Figure (4. 16) Deck shape 1 velocity distribution around for the angle of attack -10 degree. ..... 67
Figure (4. 17) Deck shape 3 pressure distribution around for the angle of attack -10 degree. ..... 67
Figure (4. 30) drag coefficient (CD) for studied deck shapes. ...................................................... 74
Figure (4. 31) Lift coefficient (CL) for studied deck shapes. ........................................................ 74
Figure (4. 32) Moment coefficient (CM) for studied deck shapes. ................................................ 75
Figure (4. 33) Pressure distribution around deck under forced vertical motion at 0.05 second ... 76
Figure (4. 43) Air velocity distribution around deck under forced vertical motion at 0.05 second
....................................................................................................................................................... 79
....................................................................................................................................................... 80
ix
....................................................................................................................................................... 80
....................................................................................................................................................... 80
....................................................................................................................................................... 81
....................................................................................................................................................... 81
....................................................................................................................................................... 81
....................................................................................................................................................... 82
....................................................................................................................................................... 82
....................................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure (4. 53) Forced rotational motion at time 0.5 second.......................................................... 83
Figure (4. 58) Pressure distribution around deck under forced Torsional motion at 0.05 second 84
Figure (4. 67) Pressure distribution around deck under forced Torsional motion at 0.50 ............ 89
Figure (4. 68) Air velocity distribution around deck under forced Torsional motion at 0.05
second ........................................................................................................................................... 89
second ........................................................................................................................................... 90
second ........................................................................................................................................... 90
second ........................................................................................................................................... 91
second ........................................................................................................................................... 91
second ........................................................................................................................................... 92
second ........................................................................................................................................... 92
second ........................................................................................................................................... 93
second ........................................................................................................................................... 93
second ........................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure (4. 78) forced non-dimensional vertical bending (h/B =0.05) simulated and Corresponding
CL time history (U/fB =6). ............................................................................................................ 94
CM time history (U/fB =6). ........................................................................................................... 95
Figure (4. 80) forced non-dimensional torsional bending 0 simulated and corresponding CM time
history (U/fB =6). ......................................................................................................................... 95
Figure (4. 81) Flutter Derivatives H1, H2, H3, and H4 ................................................................... 96
Figure (4. 82) Flutter Derivatives A1, A2, A3, and A4 ................................................................... 96
Figure (5. 1) Wing statical system ................................................................................................ 99
Figure (5. 2) Proposed Messina Bridge ........................................................................................ 99
Figure (5. 3) Akashi Kayoka bridge. .......................................................................................... 100
Figure (5. 4) Ellipse Characteristics............................................................................................ 100
Figure (5. 5) Proposed Elliptical Shape ...................................................................................... 101
Figure (5. 6) typical vertical bracing for one span ...................................................................... 101
Figure (5. 7) Separated Boxes..................................................................................................... 101
Figure (5. 8) Design truss section process .................................................................................. 102
Figure (5. 9) Proposed Box section............................................................................................. 102
Figure (5. 10) Load Model No. 1 ................................................................................................ 104
Figure (5. 11) Load Model No.2 (single axis) ............................................................................ 104
Figure (5. 12) Load Model 71 and characteristic values for vertical loads. ............................... 105
Figure (5. 13) four spans model using SAP2000. ....................................................................... 107
Figure (5. 14) Deck model using SAP 2000. .............................................................................. 107
Figure (5. 15) Resale assignment on top bracing. ....................................................................... 107
Figure (5. 16) box section model in SAP2000............................................................................ 108
Figure (5. 17) Simple Beam load and displacement ................................................................... 109
Figure (5. 18) Twisting of a beam .............................................................................................. 109
Figure (5. 19) Deck model sketch for calculating torsional stiffness. ........................................ 110
xi
Figure (5. 20) the concept of cable-stayed bridge....................................................................... 111

Figure (5. 21) cable arrangements .............................................................................................. 112
Figure (5. 22) Variation of the deck cost with numbers of stay cables in three types of cablestayed bridge. .............................................................................................................................. 113
Figure (5. 23) Variation of Pylon cost with some stay cables in cable-stayed bridges. ............. 113
Figure (5. 24) suspension bridge. ................................................................................................ 114
Figure (5. 25) Hybrid bridge system ........................................................................................... 114
Figure (5. 26) suspension cable .................................................................................................. 117
Figure (5. 27) analysis diagram for determining cable profile and forces .................................. 118
Figure (5. 28) suspension cable internal forces .......................................................................... 120
Figure (5. 29) cable inclination angle ......................................................................................... 121
Figure (5. 30) loads acting on cable in local coordinates ........................................................... 122
Figure (5. 31) studied suspension Cable Bridge ......................................................................... 123
Figure (5. 32) Bridge Pylon ........................................................................................................ 124
Figure (5. 33) proposed Gibraltar Bridge. .................................................................................. 125
Figure (5. 34) proposed Gibraltar Bridge. .................................................................................. 125
Figure (5. 35) A-shape Pylon ...................................................................................................... 126
Figure (5. 36) A-shape Pylon ...................................................................................................... 126
Figure (5. 37) Proposed Pylon .................................................................................................... 127
Figure (5. 38) Proposed pylon cross section a. Typical section; b. section with transverse
stiffener. ...................................................................................................................................... 128
Figure (5. 39) Proposed Pylon .................................................................................................... 128
Figure (5. 40) General section Data window. ............................................................................. 128
Figure (5. 41) proposed long span bridge ................................................................................... 129
Figure (5. 42) proposed long span bridge ................................................................................... 130
Figure (6. 1) Suspension bridge deformation ............................................................................. 133
Figure (6. 2) Suspension bridge deformation ............................................................................. 134
Figure (6. 3) Suspension model Normal force diagram .............................................................. 134
Figure (6. 4) Suspension model bending moment diagram ........................................................ 135
Figure (6. 5) Suspension model bending moment diagram for the bridge deck ......................... 135
Figure (6. 6) Suspension model Shear force diagram for the bridge deck ................................. 136
Figure (6. 7) Suspension model Shear force diagram for the bridge deck ................................. 137
Figure (6. 8) Suspension model bending moment diagram for the Pylon .................................. 138
Figure (6. 9) Suspension model Shear 3-3 force diagram for the Pylon..................................... 139
Figure (6. 10) Suspension model axial force diagram for the Pylon .......................................... 140
Figure (6. 11) Suspension model 3 Bending mode shape fb 0.1544 Hz ..................................... 141
Figure (6. 12) Suspension model 3 Symmetrical Torsion mode shape fb 0.23792 Hz ............... 142
Figure (6. 13) Suspension model 3 Axi-Symmetrical Torsion mode shape fb 0.2442 Hz.......... 143
Figure (6. 14) deformed shape under dead loads a. Model 1 and b. Model 2. ........................... 147
xii
Figure (6. 15) deformed shape under dead loads a. Model 3 and b. Model 4. ........................... 148
Figure (6. 16) Hybrid Bridge bending moment M2-2 ................................................................ 149
Figure (6. 17) Hybrid Bridge bending moment M3-3 ................................................................ 150
Figure (6. 18) Hybrid Bridge Axial force for the Pylon ............................................................. 151
Figure (6. 19) Hybrid Bridge Axial force for the main cable ..................................................... 152
Figure (6. 20) Hybrid Bridge bending-deformed shape.............................................................. 153
Figure (6. 21) Hybrid Bridge bending mode shape .................................................................... 154
Figure (6. 22) Hybrid Bridge Torsion mode shape ..................................................................... 155
Figure (6. 23) Hybrid Bridge Torsion mode shape ..................................................................... 156
xiii
List of Tables
Table (1. 1) Messina bridge data................................................................................................... 12
Table (2. 1) Comparison of simulation and experimental ............................................................ 34
Table (2. 2) recommended mesh height for different shapes........................................................ 42
Table (2. 3) studied models mesh characteristics. ....................................................................... 43
Table (3. 1) Studied deck shapes .................................................................................................. 50
Table (3. 2) recommended body fitted grid height ....................................................................... 53
Table (3. 3) Domain decomposition factors ................................................................................. 56
Table (3. 4) Reduced velocity and forced motion amplitudes. ..................................................... 58
Table (5. 1) Reduced velocity and forced motion amplitudes. ..................................................... 75
Table (5. 2) Proposed deck properties .......................................................................................... 96
Table (5. 1) static aerodynamic forces acting on the bridge Deck .............................................. 106
Table (5. 2) Proposed deck properties ........................................................................................ 110
Table (5. 3) studied cables configurations .................................................................................. 123
Table (5. 4) studied parameters. .................................................................................................. 131
Table (6. 1) natural frequencies and critical wind speed ............................................................ 132
Table (6. 2) Models Major results ............................................................................................. 132
Table (6. 4) Deck deformations .................................................................................................. 144
Table (6. 5) Main cable deformations ......................................................................................... 144
Table (6. 6)) natural frequency (Hz) and critical wind speed (m/sec). ....................................... 157
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Introduction
Cable-supported bridges are most important bridge system used for crossing large spans and
connecting great distances. The most common types are cable-stayed bridges and suspension
bridges. Even though their origins and evolution processes are different, their analysis methods
are very similar to the present. Thus, the term, cable supported bridge is often used to refer to
both types of structures.
The concept of suspension bridges was used in bridges more than two hundred years ago, and it
is almost the same nowadays. However, the span length of the large modern bridges is one
hundred times longer than that of the first known bridge. On the contrary, the history of cablestayed bridges is quite recent than suspension bridges. It was first introduced at the beginning of
the 20th century.
The following sections of this chapter will discuss long bridges over time and many proposed
ambitious projects underway.
1.2 History of Cable Bridges.

1.2.1. Ancient cable bridges.
Cable bridges were first introduced in the form of Rope Bridges. The bridge constructed
chiefly a rope; one or two were used for building a bridge crossing a river, assisting the traveler
to be supported in their crossing and not to be swept away.
For increasing rope bridge span, a combination of multiple ropes and boards as
footpath- were used as a permeant deck. The Inca civilization introduced this type frist. Jack,
Sayid, Hurley, and Charlie discovered an ancient rope bridge during their search for Rousseau,
figure (1.1). The bridge was used for crossing a gorge that appeared to be a 15.24-21.36 meter in
depth with a rocky bottom. Hurley was able to cross the bridge; however, the bridge was
collapsed during Charles attempt to cross it.
Inca Rope Bridge
The Inca Empire built a simple suspension rope bridge over canyons and gorges to
provide access for people as shown in figure (1.2). Rope bridges were used for crossing
1
pedestrians. As a result, the Incan Empire did not use trundled modes of transport. Bridges were
a major part of Incas road system and were a significant engineering innovation.
Figure (1.1) Rope bridge.
Figure (1.2) Inca bridge

Natural fibers made from local vegetation were used for forming the ropes. These fibers were
woven together creating strong ropes. Ropes connected and reinforced with wooden boards
creating bridge floor. The ends of main ropes were attached to very massive stone blocks on each
side of the gorge; these stone blocks were used as anchor block for the bridges while the ropes
were as main suspension cables. Also, two ropes were added as guardrails. For strengthening the
bridge, branches were used with ropes; this combination between ropes, branches, and wooden
boards made the bridge strong enough to carry a horse. For safety and strengthening, the main
ropes were replaced every year by local villagers as a part of their Inca public services.
|Moreover, the maintenance might be done by local villagers to secure Inca road system.
2
In the 18th century, it was the first introduction of the suspension bridges in simple form as it
does appear nowadays. The following most famous cable bridges will be discussed.
Jacob's Creek Bridge (1801, demolished 1833)
James Finney designed and built the first steel suspension bridge with 21 m central span
and 3.51 width over the Jacobs Creek in 1801, figure (1.3). The bridge was the first iron-chained
suspension bridge built in the United States, located south of Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
Figure (1.3) Jacob's Creek Bridge.

The bridge had detailed structural elements used is suspension bridge to date. Two main
chains with 2.54 cm (1- inch) iron bar carried the bridge; chain lengths were 1.27 and 2.54
meters. Iron chain hangers dropped from the main chain handling wooden beam under the deck.
The bridge's iron parts were designed to last for fifty years, but it collapsed in 1825.
Winch Bridge
Winch Bridge is a pedestrian bridge over the upper reaches of the Tees in Northern
England. It is located just below the waterfall Low Force on thePennine Way and, nowadays is
mainly used by tourists.
The First Bridge was from timber bridge (1771); with a span of was 21meter, and width was 60
centimeter. It was a pedestrian bridge. It was the first chain bridge in the western world. Handforged iron chains were stretched between vertical rock walls of Tees Gorge and were covered
with boards. In 1802, the chain was broken, and the bridge collapsed where a man drowned.
The Second Bridge was a suspension bridge; constructed in 1830. Its span was 21meter, and
width was 70 cm, figure (1.4).
A wooden deck was suspended from two wrought iron carrying chains that are supported by two
small cast iron pylons on the banks. The bridge was strengthened in 1992, and now is allowed to
cross one person due to bridge vibrations.
Figure (1.4) Winch Bridge (1830)

The Szchenyi Chain Bridge (1849)
The bridge located on River Danube between the western and eastern sides of Budapest,
Hungary. The bridge was opened in 1849. It was the permanent bridge across the Danube in
Budapest. At this time, it was one of the largest suspension bridges in the world; the span of 202
meters, figure (1.5).
In 1914, the iron part of the bridge was updated and strengthened. During the second
world war, the bridge was severely damaged during The Siege of Budapest and was rebuilt and
reopened 1949
Brooklyn Bridge
In 1883, Brooklyn Bridge a landmark in suspension bridges, United States was completed and
opened; the bridge has a 486.3-meter central span.It was the first steel-wire suspension bridge
constructed, figure (1.6).
Figure (1.5) The Szchenyi Chain Bridge
Figure (1.6) Brooklyn Bridge (1883).

For several years after opening, it was the longest suspension bridge in the world and has
become a treasured landmark. The designer design the deck and truss six times as calculated
sections. The Brooklyn Bridge is still standing while many bridges were built around this time
were vanished and replaced. The cables installed were four to six times as required to support the
bridge. For stiffening the bridge, 250 additional diagonal cables were installed from the towers to
the deck; they turned out to be unnecessary but were kept for their beauty.
5
Figure (1.7) Brooklyn Bridge Tower
1.2.2. Cable bridges in recent century.

This section discusses the major cable bridges in the nineteenth century.
Tacoma Bridge
Tacoma Bridge was a landmark in bridge engineering; it was the longest suspension bridge in the
world at this time. It was 853 meters central span. Tacoma Narrows Bridge located in
Washington, United States of America.
The Bridge was opened on 1st July 1940 and collapsed on 7th November 1940. The bridge lasted
about three months. Its deck consisted of two main steel girders with transverse ties ,figure (1.8).
The bridge had a slender appearance because of the small ratio between the edge depth and span
length that was 1/350. Figure (1.9) provides both a picture of the whole bridge and the deck cross
section.
Figure (1.8) Tacoma Bridge cross section.
Figure (1.9) Tacoma Bridge view.

7
Tacoma Bridge collapse changed the world view of cable bridges analysis and design.
Aeroelasticity was firstly introduced after deep analysis for Tacoma collapse as would be
explained later.
Sutong Bridge in China
Sutong Bridge was the longest cable-stay bridge with 1088 meters central span and a 300-meter
pylon height. The bridge crosses Nantong Yangtze River in China and completed in 2007 figure
(1.10). The total length of the cable supported part was 2088 meters, and the pylon height was
300 meter.
Figure (1.10) Sutong Bridge

Regarding geotechnical studies for the bridge site, feasibility study and construction method of
the bridge, the design team opted a double-plane, twin-pylon, cable-stayed bridge. The span
arrangements was (100+100+300+1,088+300+ 100+100), Figure (2.11).
Figure (1.11) Span arrangements.

The bridge girder is a closed, flat, streamlined steel box girder with 4.0 meters in depth and 41.0
meters width including wind fairings. The steel girder is stiffened longitudinally with closed steel
troughs and transversely by plate diaphragms spaced every 4.0 meters maximum. The
diaphragms get closer near supports until reach 2.27 meters. The girder carries eight dual-traffic
lanes. The pylon is an inverted Y-shaped with 300 height. The lower part of the pylon is from
8
concrete of C50 grade. The upper part is a steel part fastened to concrete using shear studs. The
steel part used for anchoring stays cables, figure (1.13)
Figure (1.12) Sutong Bridge Cross section.
Figure (1.13) Sutong Bridge Pylon.
The Rion-Antirion Bridge, Greece.

9
The RioAntirio Bridge is the longest multi-span cable stay bridges; the bridge crosses
the Gulf of Corinth near Patras, Greece. The bridge consists of five spans with four pylons.
Spans are 286-560-560-560-286 meters with a total length 2800 meters, figure (1.14 and 1.15).
The girder carries four dual-traffic lanes and an emergency lane for a pedestrian walkway
with 27.20 meteres total width, figure (1.16). The deck is composite steel-concrete structure; 2535 cm concrete slab connected to twin longitudinal steel I-girders, 2.20 meters high, figure
(1.17).
Figure (1.14) The Rion-Antirion Bridge.
Figure (1.15) The Rion-Antirion Bridge spans arrangements.
Figure (1.16) The Rion-Antirion Bridge Cross section.
10
Figure (1.17) The Rion-Antirion Bridge Cross section details.

1.2.3. The Challenge of Cable Bridges in 21th Century.
Over the past decade, strides in bridge engineering, particularly with design, aeroelastic
studies and construction procedures, have meant that projects could be carried in places
previously deemed untenable. Redening countries and continental geography are the links,
already mentioned here, that have been forged in the Japanese archipelago, between the Danish
islands, or between Denmark and Sweden. Bridges whose spans nearly stretch to 2000 m have
already been raised, and other projects are underway. In this period of optimism, no limit seems
insurmountable.
Bridge Project over the Strait of Messina
The Strait of Messina Bridge was an ancient dream since Roman times. There are three
kilometers of water between Sicily and southern mainland Italy (Calabria). Engineers studied
several solutions for crossing it. Water depth, high seismic activity, and high winds have
hindered most designs so far.
Nowadays, the economic need for building such bridge link between north and south parts has
increased due to economic aspects. Traditional crossing methods take up to 2 hours and are
congested during peak times. The proposed bridge will save crossing time, will facilitate
economic growth and social regeneration. The project cost will be approximately 6 billion that
will be almost the economic gain. The main bridge strucural characteristics are illustrated in
table (1.1)
11
Table (1. 1) Messina bridge data

Span
Tower Height
Deck Width
Cable Diameter
Designed Wind speed
Designed earthquake
Design lifetime
Approx. cost
3300 m
382.6
60.4 m
4 x 1.24m
75 m/sec
7.1 magnitude
200 years
6.1 bn
Different cross-sections were studied, figure (1.20) and section (C) was chosen to be the most
suitable for the bridge.
Gibraltar Bridge
The longest proposed bridge in the world. The bridge will connect Morocco, Africa and Spain,
Europe. Engineers proposed several ingenious design for a bridge or tunnel across the Strait of
Gibraltar; that will join the continents of Europe and Africa.
In 1996 Prof. T Y Lin, designed a hybrid stayed suspension bridge after numerous Gibraltar
Bridge alternatives had been exhausted, including classic suspension bridges and cable-stiffened
suspension bridges, figure (1.21). The hybrid stayed suspension bridge was the most suitable
alternative due to its better rigidity and better aerodynamics.
(a)
12
(b)
(c)
Figure (1.18) Proposed Messina bridge cross sections
13
Figure (1. 19) Proposed Gibraltar Bridge
1.3. Objective of the thesis

The discussion presented above highlights the development of cable bridges and the progress of
this type of bridges. The objective of this study is to develop and apply appreciate long span
bridge. The proposed spans are as discussed before 3000 and 4000 meters. Extensive
aerodynamic study for cross sections to evaluate the most suitable cross section for such long
span bridges which will be the least aerodynamic forces; and the most stable against
aerodynamic phenomena. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) is preciousness tools for
studying fluid structure interaction. Different theories explain the relation between elastic
structure and aerodynamic forces especially for cable bridges such as Thendarson Theory and
Scalan Theory, and those will be discussed later.
This study will discuss different supporting systems for the bridge. The conventional systems are
cable stay and suspension. In this study a combination of those two systems will be discussed,
called hybrid system. It was suggested in the different previous studies and will be modified to
optimum the proposed system for such span.
14
1.5 Summary of Chapters

Chapter 1
A brief history of cable bridges and the beginning of this type are presented. This short history
concern about the beginning of cable bridges and it first introduced in the history of rope bridges,
the chain bridge, and finally cable bridges as we will discuss in this study. Major bridges were
discussed in this chapter, and the primary challenges bridge nowadays presented.
Chapter 2
Aerodynamic and aeroelastic theories are discussed in this chapter. This chapter discusses major
classical theories discussing aerodynamic as Newtons law, the aerodynamics phenomena as
static body and vortex induced vibrations. Also, Chapter 2 discusses the effect of Tacoma bridge
collapse on bridge aerodynamic, the development of aeroelasticity and it major theories; also
computational fluid dynamic CFD and numerical modeling researches were summarized.
Chapter 3
Chapter 3 discusses new six bridge deck shapes from aerodynamic aspect implementing CFD;
numerical model criteria for static aerodynamic forces and flutter derivatives' calculation method
using CFD and forced vibration motion discusses in literature.
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 shows the results of aerodynamic analysis for static and flutter derivatives calculations
for the proposed bridge deck shapes
Chapter 5
Chapter 5 discusses the statical system for elliptical deck shape and the method used for
calculating this combined shape section properties. The system of cable bridges, proposed
method for determining cable suspension profile and the proposed systems for ultra-long span
bridges using three-dimensional suspension cable is discussed
Chapter 6
Chapter 6 discusses the results of the proposed cable statical systems. The chapters shows the
calculation for the critical wind speed for proposed ultra-long span bridge.
Chapter 7 Summary and conclusions
15
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.0. History of Aerodynamics.

The human flight was a history legend. Most legends in history show mankind yearning
to fly like birds as Daedalus and Icarus stories. However, those stories do not contain many
elements of aerodynamic thinking moreover aerodynamic aspect of the flight was not discussed.
Later Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) studied the bird flight He was the first who sketched
helicopter concept, figure (2.1) which based on Archimedes screw.
Figure (2.1) Da Vinci helicopter

Later, Newton studied the mechanics of forces acting between solid body and fluid. He studied
the body motion with uniform velocity through the fluid orthogonally at rest or the fluid
movement with the same velocity against the body. Newton found that the forces are
proportional to velocity square, square of the linear dimension of the body, the density of the
fluid. The force acting on a body equals the change of its momentum. Newton studied the
pressure acting on an inclined plate immersed in an airstream and subjected to uniform speed
flow, figure (2.2); his studies leads to formula or a law known as Newton's Sin Square Law of
Resistance as in equation (2.1). Newtons work clearly marked the beginning of the Classical
Theory of Aerodynamics.
16
Equation (2. 1)
Figure (2.2) Inclined Plate Forces Sketch.

During the 18th and 19th century, many discoveries led to a better understanding of the factors
influencing the solid bodies movements through the air. Reynolds's experiments assisted in
discovering the relationship between resistance and the viscous properties of a fluid. Also,
Strouhal investigated the vortex shedding process on a circular cylinder and formulated a
dimensionless shedding frequency now widely known as a Strouhal number. The studied number
was constant over a certain range of Reynolds numbers.
2.1. Aerodynamic.
Until the 7th November 1940, Cable bridges were mainly designed for traditional static
and live loads considering the static effect of wind. At this date, Tacoma Bridge collapse;
Tacoma Bridge was the longest suspension bridge with a central span 853 m.
Tacomas collapse caused an immediate commotion and widespread unrest. In the words of Scott
how can an apparently well-designed bridge using the latest technology to withstand winds of
161 km/h and the static horizontal pressure of winds 146 kg/m2 subjected to winds at half the
speed and pressures around one-sixth of the design value?
The major problems of cable-supported bridges under wind are those associated with excess
deflection, which caused by oscillatory instability or by random response due to the action of
wind gusts.
In the case of cable bridges, the bridge is very flexible and the system effect majorly by the wind.
It is primarily the recurrence of large deflections and truly aeroelastic behavior of the bridge that
has set the study of cable bridges apart as a particular subset of the wind problems of cablesupported structures.
Cable-supported bridges are classified as bluff bodies. The flow separation and re-attachment
characterize this type of body as a source of excitation that may lead to aeroelastic instabilities.
The following section discusses aerodynamics concepts as a boundary layer for static and
oscillating bodies.
17
2.1.1. Static Body:

The mechanism of flow separation is highly related to the behavior of the boundary layer around
the body. The boundary layer is dominated by the fluid viscosity, which is one of the main
physical properties of any. Viscosity is a measure of the fluid capability to resist shear forces.
Navier-Stokes equations govern the relation between the inertial terms and the viscous terms by
the Reynolds number, which is a core parameter in the domain of fluid mechanics. The Reynolds
number is defined as:
Equation (2. 2)
Where:
V denotes the free-stream velocity;
L is a reference length of the system and:
is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
Within the boundary layer, fluid velocity changes from zero on the surface to free stream
velocity, figure (2.3). If the viscosity is small, its influence on the flow regime will be confined
to a small region.
Figure (2.3) Boundary layer.

The Reynolds number (Rn) represents the ratio between the inertia force and the friction force
acting on the fluid. When the flow passes a circular cylinder, the flow natural changes with the
increase in Rn, figure (2.4). Also, Rn increase affects drag forces, figure (2.5)
18
Figure (2.4) Reynolds number effect on drag forces (thesis ref. 7).
Figure (2.5) Reynolds number effect on drag forces.

At a very low Reynolds number, the flow pattern is very similar to that of laminar flow, and the
inertia effects are negligible; that means, the pressure drag is also negligible and effective drag
on the body is due to skin friction.
When Re varies between 2 and 30, flow separation occurs at the cylinder leward. As Re
increases, eddies get longer, and the reattachment of the boundary layer occurs far away from the
cylinder depending on the turbulence level. As Re get larger small eddies occur, that depends on
free stream turbulence level, those eddies lead to Vortex street (Von Karman Vortex street); that
later known as vortex induce vibration as will be discussed in the following section.
For bluff bodies with sharp corners, the separation points are fixed to the sharp edges of the
body, figure (2.6). The high curvature of the shape creates a strong adverse gradient, which is
added to the decelerating effect of the skin friction, resulting in a free unstable shear layer
downstream the sharp edge of the body. Once separation occurs, the shear layer re-attaches
downstream on the surface of the body, or not. For a static bluff body, two factors are important.
The first is Aerodynamic factor that is the Reynolds number that represents the turbulent
19
characteristic of the boundary layer. The second is a geometric factor characterizing the bluffness
of the body (B/D), where B and Dare the width and the depth of the body, respectively
Figure (2.7) illustrate the geometry factor, where flow separation is sketched for two different
bluff bodies B/D = 1, B/D= 2 B/D = 7. The modification of bluff body sharpness into rounded
corners or streamlined aerodynamic appendages is an economical method to reduce the flow
separation and the resulting aeroelastic instabilities.
Figure (2.6) Flow separation sketch for bluff body
Figure (2.7) B/D effect for the bluff body with sharp edges.
2.1.2. Vortex-Induced vibrations (VIV)

A Forced motion induced on the body subjected to external flow by periodical irregularities in
this flow. VIV classical example is the cylinder under water. When the vortices are not
symmetrical around the body (on its midplane), various lift forces develop on each side of the
body and lead to motion transverse to the flow. The forced motion changes the vortex formation
nature that leads to a limited motion amplitude. Body oscillation excitation occurs at shedding
frequencies close to the natural frequency of the body in across-flow direction.
2.2. Tacoma effect.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse at the United States was an unexpected event that has a
resounding impact on Bridge Engineering. Tacoma Bridge was the longest bridge with 835
meters at that time central span. The bridge deck consists of two longitudinal steel girders with
transverse ties. The ratio between the edge length and the span length was 1/350, figures (1.8,
1.9, and 2.8).
20
Figure (2.8) Tacoma Bridge Oscillating.

Leon Moisseif (18721943), the great bridge engineer of the time was the Tacoma Bridge
designer. He designed Manhattan Bridge in New York (1909) and the Bay Bridge between San
Francisco and Oakland (1936). He was as a consultant engineer for the Golden Gate Bridge in
San Francisco (1937).
On 7 November 1940 morning, the vertical oscillations reached their normal rate that equals 1.5
m. During the oscillation, few cable bands along the bridges center broke by a wind speed
reaching about 70 km/h, the bridge oscillated suddenly changed. The movements resemble those
caused by asymmetrical torsion with a node located halfway along the central span figures
(2.8,2.9).
21
Figure (2.9) Tacoma Oscillation (torsional mode shape)
Figure (2.10) Tacoma collapse.

The bridge initial oscillation frequency was 3.9 rad/s, but suddenly changed to 1.5 rad/s. At this
frequency, the torsional motions of the deck increased and the bridge collapsed half an hour
later, figure (2.10 and 2.11).
22
Figure (2.11) Tacoma after collapsing.

After the Tacoma collapse, Public Works Administration (PWA) selected three engineers for
investigating the failure. They were Othmar H. Ammann, Theodore von Karman, and Glenn B.
Woodruff. The main points in their report to PWA was as following:
Tacoma Bridge was well designed and constructed. However, it could resist all static
forces neglecting the dynamic effect of wind. The wind caused undulation that led the
bridge failure.
The bridge was flexible, and the bridge was not able to absorb or damp the dynamic
forces that caused oscillation. This oscillation led to the bridge failure.
The vertical oscillation caused no structural damage. However, the torsional oscillation
stressed the cables that led to the failure of suspenders though central span, then the
progressive collapse of the bridge occurred.
They recommended more experimental studies for suspension bridges to determine the
aerodynamic forces acting on it and bridge behavior.
Von Karman, a known aeronautical engineer, studied the Tacoma bridge failure and proposed
that the motion that caused the failure was due to vortices. He explained that when an air flow
passes a bluff body, periodic shedding of air vortices occurs. Those vortices caused central span
oscillation and violent twist until the bridge collapse.
K Yusuf Billah and Robert H. Scanlan proposed that the reason for the collapse was the
aerodynamic flutter; that the change of the lift and drag forces along the span of the bridge
during oscillation. The torsional degree of freedom allowed torsional oscillation. This oscillation
occurred due to wind load. As the deck rotated the wind forces acting on the bridge deck
23
changed and the wind forces pushed the bridge deck in the opposite direction. As the bridge
rotated, forces acting on the bridge increased, the bridge failed; the bridge was free to rotate, and
this rotation led to the bridge collapse.
The studies and explanations for Tacoma Bridge collapse ensured that the cable bridges are
flexible and are not able to absorb aerodynamic forces. The deck oscillated due to vortices
formation; as the bridge oscillated, the forces acting on the bridge changed. This relation
between bridge stiffness and aerodynamic forces for a flexible structure as cable bridges is a
complicated. Aeroelasticity is the science that discusses such relationships.
2.3.Aeroelasticity
The air flow around a bridge causes deformation and changes the wind load acting on the
structure. As the wind pressure increases, bridge deformation increases; the bridge acts as an
elastic structure. The phenomena discussing this relation is called aeroelastic, and the science is
aeroelasticity. Aeroelasticity is the science that discusses the relation between elastic structures,
and dynamic forces results from fluid movement around the structure, figure (2.12) colars
aeroelastic triangle
Figure (2.12) Collar's aeroelastic triangle.

Aeroelasticity discussed different phenomenon; in bridge aerodynamic there are four important
phenomena as following:
Vortex Shedding
Flutter.
Buffeting.
Cable Vibration.
Vortex shedding
A type of aeroelastic vibration occurs when the air flow lines collide with the bridge deck; the air
flow lines modifies and generates vortex shedding. It depends on the bridge geometry that
interaction with certain wind velocities produces vertical forces. The vortex changes forces
direction. These forces change cause deck vibration with limited amplitude and doesn't cause
24
bridge collapse. However, they might make the bridge uncomfortable for walking or limit traffic
circulation
Buffeting
An aeroelastic vibration phenomenon generated by turbulent wind flow; that occurs when the
wind gusts of different average wind velocity. This phenomenon does not cause instability like
vortex shedding, but both affect the service lifetime of the bridge.
Flutter
The interaction between bridge and wind flow generates an incremental vibration; vibration
amplitude increases with each cycle. Once vibration starts, aeroelastic instabilities starts, and it
occasionally causes bridge collapse. This aeroelastic oscillation vibration can occur at a uniform
flow without external disturbance.
Cable vibration
Cables of cable stay bridges also interact with air fluid. This interaction generates cable
vibrations that may occur in different velocity ranges and is influenced by the associated rain.
The deformations of cables depend on its geometry, stiffness, and mass. This phenomenon does
not cause cable rupture. However, some events of great amplitude and frequency have happened
so that correctors devices had to be installed.
All the aeroelastic phenomena discussed before are critical. However, the flutter is the most
critical one because it is the only one that occasionally may cause a bridge collapse.
2.2. Flutter
Two major approaches that facilitate the study of the behavior of cable-supported bridges under
wind loads. The rst one is the experimental aeroelasticity method, which is based on windtunnel testing with reduced scale models. The other is the analytical approach that is based on
aeroelasticity analysis, applied already in aeronautical engineering. The flutter instability may be
done by considering a single type of vibration, or study of the combination of various vibration
modes that may occur due to the interaction of different component within each mode.
Considering different modes provides safer and more accurate results for bridges whose span
length is between 1500 and 2000 meters. The following section discusses experimental and
numerical methods for studying flutter phenomena for cable bridges.
2.3. Wind tunnel and Experimental work.

The experimental method for simulating aerodynamic or aeroelastic structures is a reduced scale
model for the structure in wind tunnel test. Wind tunnel test simulates the wind on the structure;
and its response can be determined using different instruments such as sensors, strain gages.
Different type of wind tunnel tests are available. Each one has its limitation and application
range of Reynolds number and wind velocities. In bridge aerodynamics, there are three types of
tests static and aeroelastic section tests and full-scale model testing.
25
2.3.1. Section testing

These types of tests study the effect of the wind on bridge deck trough testing a reduced scale
model of the bridge deck. There are two of section tests based on extracted results; both types
studied the effect of the wind on a reduced scale model as explained in the following
2.3.1.1. Aerodynamic Testing.
In this test, a rigid model for deck cross section with a reduced geometry scaled down- is
exposed to a uniform air flow with velocity "U m/sec, figure (2.13) and using some instruments.
The forces acting on bridge deck can be estimated. Non-dimensional aerodynamic coefficients
can be calculated from Equation (2.3)
Figure (2.13) Aerodynamic forces acting on the bridge with angle of attack
Equation (2. 3)
Where:
D is drag force;
L is lift force;
M is pitching moment;
is air density;
B is deck length;
U is uniform wind speed.
This test is performed for different wind angle of attack, and the aerodynamic forces are
measured for each angle. These forces will be used in calculating aerodynamic coefficients that
are non-dimensional coefficient representing aerodynamic force the recommendation scale for
this test varies from 1:80 to 1:40 for a bridge under design or study.
3.3.1.2. Aeroelastic testing.

26
This test simulates bridge deck as possible as to the original type. Bridge deck model in this test
has three degrees of freedom, v, w and figure (2.15). For simulating that displacement, a
dimensional analysis should be carried out for determining mass, mass model and stiffnesses of
elastic springs which as supports for the deck model, figure (2.14). Figure (2.15) displays a
sketch of aeroelastic forces. Those forces were formulated as Equations (2.4, 2.5 and 2.6).
Aeroelastic forces measured during the test as time history and flutter derivatives can be easily
extracted from those equations.
Figure (2.14) Deck supporting sketch for aeroelastic wind tunnel testing.
(
)
Equation (2. 4)
)
Equation (2. 5)
27
)
Equation (2. 6)
Where:
L is the lift forces;

M is the pitching moment;
B is the width of the bridge;
U is the mean wind speed;
is the air density;
is the reduced frequency;
is the circular frequency of the oscillation;
h and are vertical motion and its time derivatives;
and are vertical motion and its time derivatives;
,
and
are flutter derivatives
2.3.2. Full-scale Model.

The whole bridge and major surrounding topography are scaled down. Also, dimensional
analysis is carried. The bridge model scale is 1:1200 that requires a particular wind tunnel test,
figure (2.15). This modeling type is built to fulfill safety requirements, and prevent flutter
instability occurrence. Also, helps in evaluating the location conditions effect on wind load.
Figure (2. 15) Full-scale model
28
2.2.1 Flutter Numerical Analysis

After Tacoma bridge collapse, long span bridge worry was from flutter collapse. Flutter was
known in Aeronautical Engineering due to the concern about the behavior of aircraft wings.
Flutter was defined mathematical formulas driven from classical aeroelasticity. Classical
aeroelasticity was a combination of fluid dynamic theories and deformable solid mechanics Fung
wrote classic aeroelasticity textbook, developed equations governing the phenomena of flutter
instability. There are two types of flutter, torsional and coupled. In torsional flutter, torsional
mode dominates the flutter instability; while in coupled flutter torsional mode couples with any
first symmetric or axisymmetric heaving modes at a single frequency called classical flutter.
Various studies showed that the torsional flutter seems to dominate almost cases of the bridge
with bluff bridge sections. The streamlined box section is appropriate for flutter analysis.
However, in the case of Akashi Kayoka bridge exhibited coupled flutter that has never been
experienced before with stiffened truss sections.
Consider a section of an airfoil or a bridge deck that was subjected to uniform wind flow (U),
figure (2.16). The section has two degrees of freedom: bending displacement h and torsional .
For unit span of the section, the equation of motion can be expressed as follows:
Figure (2. 16) Degrees of freedom for bridge deck or airfoil.

Different studies were carried out on formulating the flutter instability phenomenon; the
following sections will discuss major theories such as Thendorson and Scanlons theories and
empirical formula investigated by Selberg.
2.2.1.1. Thendarson Theory.

Theodorsen (1897- 1978) studied a flat plate, figure (2.17). The plate had two degrees of
freedom and subjected to two type of movements; vertical displacement h that would produce
bending along the bend; and a pitching rotation , around a localized axis at ab distance of
halfway along the wings chord.
29
Figure (2.17) Movement considered for the thin plate.

The plate is subjected to harmonic oscillation; the vertical was
; and the rotational
was
, where ,
are complex and determine and determine the movements
amplitude and phase angle with respect to the forces of excitation and the frequency.
Theodorsen assumed that Lift and moment forces are linear in h and
considering non ; the movements are written as ( )
dimensional time variable
and ( )
is the reduced frequency response. Aerodynamic forces represented in
where
Equation (2.7 and 2.8) which were defined in terms of two theoretical functions F (k) and G (K)
as shown in figure (2.18)
)*
,(
Equation (2. 7)
,(
(
)(
-
)*
Equation (2. 8)
Where U is the average of the acting wind speed, the air density and F and G are the real and
imaginary parts of the Theodorsen function respectively
30
Figure (2.18) Real and imaginary parts of the Theodorsen function

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
Equation (2. 9)
Where: H and K are the modified Hunkel and Bessel functions. The real part F(k) and the
imaginary G(k) of C(k)
2.2.3. Scalan Theory.

Robert H. Scanlan was a lecturer at John Hopkins University (Baltimore, USA). He studied
mathematical modeling for aeroelastic instability found in long span bridges. He produced lots of
researches and can be considered as a pioneer in the eld of aeroelasticity for long-span bridges.
The classical theoretical (and some experimental) work used complex form
for representing
the flutter oscillation. Scanlan and Tomoko were firstly developed a linear form as in the
following:
(
(
)(
)(
Equation (2. 10)

)
Equation (2. 11)
In this form, there are six aerodynamic derivatives. Later on, they improved those equations that
involve eight aerodynamic derivatives as follows:
31
)(
)(
Equation (2. 12)

)
Equation (2. 13)
Where:

is the air density;

and
The lift force may be expressed in a classical expression per unit length of span for small wind
angle of attack:
( )
Equation (2. 14)
. Those terms
Terms
or
are thus analogous to lift coefficient derivatives
should be referred to as motional derivatives, however, and they go over into steady-state
derivatives, such as
for K equals zero. Experimentally, aerodynamic coefficients can
measured if the body is an oscillatory state whereas

is obtained under static condition.
The factors K or K2 preceding
and
could just as well be included with those latter in a
total coefficient of some other designation if desired, but the evolution of the theory has
identified them as non-dimensional factors. Those equations discussed before were based on flat
plate analytical solution. Regarding to bridge deck design, bridge deck shape cannot be
considered as aerodynamic shape which make it impossible to complete analytical formulation.
2.2.4. Sleberg's Equation.

The most popular approach is Selbergs formula for its simplicity. Slebrag (1961) defined the
flutter with proper rotation. He proposed an empirical formula for the critical flutter wind speed
related to the mainly torsional branch flutter phenomenon. Selbergs formula provides the flutter
stability limit with reasonable accuracy. The formula assumes that the aerodynamic properties of
the cross section are similar to those of a flat plate, and the vertical and torsional modes have a
classic shape.
(
Equation (2. 15)
Alternative ways of expressing the Sleberg's formula

32
( )(
Equation (2. 16)
( )
Where:
: is the natural frequency for torsional bending;
: is the natural frequency for vertical bending;

r : is the radius of gyration for cross-section;
d : is the cord length;
: is
That empirical equation is based on experimental work for different bridges deck cross-sections.
Figure (2.19) shows a comparison between experimental work and predicted values from
Selbergs formula. At low angle of attack, formula predicts an overestimated critical wind speed;
the formula prediction gives a reasonable prediction for flutter wind speed. However, it is unwise
to rely on an empirical formula alone.
Figure (2.19) Comparison between measured critical flutter speed and Selberg prediction
2.4. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a numerical simulation of fluid flow, heat transfer, mass
transfer, chemical reactions, and related phenomena. Mathematical algorism flows governing
equation for predicting the studied phenomena behavior. CFD helps in simulating the interaction
between air and fluid by defining a boundary layer between different medias. Initial experimental
validation of such software is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in
full-scale testing, e.g. flight tests. The technique is very powerful
33
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a numerical simulation of fluid flow, heat transfer, mass
transfer, chemical reactions, and related phenomena. Mathematical algorism flows governing
equation for predicting the studied phenomena behavior. CFD helps in simulating the interaction
between air and fluid by defining a boundary layer between different medias.
CFD has made impressive progress in the past decade and has evolved into a promising design
tool for the development of Aerodynamic structures. CFD is cheaper than tunnel test; using CFD
models. It is easy to calculate aerodynamic forces acting on any shape with reasonable accuracy.
The parametric study became more competitive, saving the cost of tunnel tests trails. Only
verifying the optimum aerodynamic shape with a prototype model to verify the CFD results is
required. Table (2.1) shows a comparison between CFD simulation and experimental work.
Table (2. 1) Comparison of simulation and experimental
Simulation (CFD)
Cost
Cheap
Time
short
Scale
Any
Information
All
Repeatable
Yes
Safety
Yes
Experimental
Expensive
Long
Small/Middle
Measured Points
Some
Some Dangerous
2.4.1. Governing Equations

The fundamental governing equations of fluid dynamics which are the cornerstone for CFD are
the continuity, momentum and energy equations. The motion law that applies to solids is valid
for all matters including liquids and gases. Principle difference, however, between fluid and
solids is that the fluid distorts without limit. For example, if shear stress is applied to a fluid, then
layers of fluid particles will move about each other, and the particle will not return to their
original position until application to shear stress terminology. Analysis of fluid needs to take into
account such distortion.
Navier-Stokes Equation.
Navier-Stokes Equation based on the conservation law of physical properties of the fluid. The
principle of conservational law is the change of properties, for example, energy, mass, and
momentum, in an object is determined by the input and output. Applying the mass, momentum
and energy conservation, we can derive the continuity equation, momentum equation, and energy
equation as follows.
Continuity Equation:
Equation (2. 17)
Momentum Equation:
Equation (2. 18)
Where:
34
Equation (2. 19)
Energy Equation:
Equation (2. 20)
2.4.2. CFD System
Figure (2.20) CFD simulation methodology

2.4.2.1. Preprocessor:
This section concern about data entry for different required parameter for simulate the
problem through operating friendly interface and subsequent transformation of this input data in
a form suitable for use by the solver. The user activities for the pre-processing stage involve:
A) Computational Domain.
The Computational domain recommends the model environment where the solution is
calculated. For example, For circular shape, the domain dimensions is function of shape
The shape of the solution domain can be circular or rectangular as shown in figure (2.21)
35
Figure (2.21) A rectangular box solution domain (LxD)

The choice of solution domain shape and size can affect the solution of the problem. The smaller
size of domains needs less iteration to solve the problem, in contrast to big domains, which need
more time to find the solution.
B) Mesh Generation
The mesh or grid is defined as the discrete locations at which the variables are to be
calculated and to be solved. The grid divides the solution domain into a finite number of
subdomains, for instance, elements, control volumes, etc. There are three types of mesh
structured mesh, block structured mesh and unstructured mesh.
C) Physical Model
Selection of the physical or chemical phenomena that need to be modeled
D) Definition of fluid properties.
E) Boundary conditions.
There are several boundary conditions for the discretized equations; inlet, outlet, and wall were
used in our models only
Inlet Boundary Condition
The inlet boundary condition permits flow to enter the solution domain. It can be a
velocity inlet, pressure inlet or mass flow inlet.
Outlet Boundary Condition
The outlet boundary condition permits flow to exit the solution domain. It also can be a
velocity outlet, pressure outlet or mass flow outlet.
36
Wall Boundary Condition

The wall boundary condition is the most common condition regarding in confined fluid
flow problems, such as flow inside the pipe. The wall boundary condition can be defined
for laminar and turbulent flow equations.
2.4.2.2. Solver:
There are three numerical solution techniques: finite difference, finite element, and spectral
method. In those different methods, the solver performs the following steps:
Approximation of unknown flow variables by the meaning of simple functions.

Discretization by substitution of the approximations into governing flow equations
and subsequent mathematical manipulations.
A solution of algebraic equations.
The main differences between three separate streams are associated with the way in which the
flow variables are approximated and with the discretization process.
2.4.2.3. Post-processor
This section concern about displaying mesh regions and calculated results done by the solver as
pressure distribution, velocity distribution, and streamlines, vectors, etc.
2.5 Previous studies work

2.5.1. Numerical studied on the evaluation of aerodynamic force coefficients of the
cable stay bridge deck.
M.kaeerthana et al., 2011 worked on verifying a numerical model criterion for calculating
aerodynamic coefficients, and compared them with experimental results. Numerical models
were prepared using a built in Computational Fluid Dynamic in ANSYS/FLOTRAN. This model
based on two- dimensional Navier Stockes equations for an incompressible fluid with a constant
viscosity. A slab on girder bridge deck cross-section was tested as shown in figure (2.22). This
section represented an existing cable stay bridge in Gao. This section is a scaled down of 1:50;
the bridge has a width of 13.2 m. The tested section was 98 cm length, 26.4 cm width, and 0.7
cm deck thickness.
37
Figure (2. 22) cross section of the bridge deck and the sign convention for force
This section was tested in a wind tunnel; the wind direction angle varied from -15 to 15 degrees,
figure (2.23). The wind tunnel test has 1800 cm length, 250 cm width, and 180 cm height.
Figure (2. 23) Tested Setup in Wind Tunnel with 0o wind

A two-dimensional model was prepared to represent wind tunnel test; the domain was meshed
using an unstructured mesh of quadrilateral elements (Fluid 141 element). The mesh was dense
near the wall to the non-dimensionalized distance from the wall (y+) in the range of 30 to 40 mm;
that was to ensure the mesh adequacy near the wall region and results in a dense mesh. Fluid
density was 1.226 Kg/m3 and kinematic energy was 1.3=10-6 m2/sec.
The studied section was assumed to be a rigid bluff body that was subjected to uniform wind
flow with a velocity of 14 m/sec; the corresponding Reynolds number was 55000 ( characteristic
dimension was the dimension perpendicular to the flow)
Three types of turbulent flow models were studied, to choose the most suitable model for
simulating flow over a bridge deck K-, K-w and shear stress transport (SST). Another model
was prepared by discrete vortex method using RM 2006 Model. The comparison between
aerodynamic forces coefficients calculated from experimental and numerical models.
38
In wind tunnel test, aerodynamic forces are computed using the measured pressure. The forces
calculated for X and Y directions; those forces were resolved in drag force acting along the
direction of wind and lift forces acting perpendicular to the direction of the wind.
Equation (2. 21)
Where and are mean forces coefficients along x and y axis; and were computed using
measured pressures. B is the characteristic length and was assumed to be the height of the bridge
section/ the dimension normal to the flow. Drag forces are the forces acting along the wind
direction, and the lift forces acting perpendicular to wind direction. Fx and FY were measured,
then drag and lift forces computed based on wind direction angle. Aerodynamic coefficients
calculated as following
Equation (2. 22)
Figure (2. 24) variation of mean drag coefficient with wind angle.
39
Figure (2. 25) variation of mean lift coefficient with wind angle.
40
Figure (2. 26) variation of mean Moment coefficient with wind angle.
From the comparisons, it was found that RM2006 gives more realistic results than other models;
the CD and CL results match very well with the values obtained based on wind tunnel tests, in the
opposite CM does not match.
2.5.2. Numerical Simulation for Aerodynamic Derivatives of a Bridge Deck.

Lin. Huang et al., 2009, discussed determining numerical simulation for determining
aerodynamic derivatives of bridge deck using the grid based method. This method based on
dividing the domain into several different subdomains. The outer domain is a fixed domain and
only the bridge deck moves rigidly. This method is valid for only small displacement. This
approach main advantage is the low computational cost. The analysis is based on Scanlans
theory and its' flutter derivatives as discussed in section 2.2.3. Researchers used a commercial
Computational Fluid dynamic software Ansys Fluent for preparing CFD Models.
The CFD models were incompressible, unsteady 2D viscous flow with moving boundaries which
based on Navier stock equations. The turbulent viscosity was obtained through two equations, K-RNG turbulent model. The computational domain is discretized into rigid boundary layer mesh
region, dynamic mesh region, and static mesh as shown in figure (2.27)
41
U=V=0
W2
W4
W5
W6
V1
V3
Bridge Section
V5
V6 Rigid Boundary Layer Mesh
V4
Dynamic Mesh Region
P=0
Inlet Boundary u=U, v=0
W3
Outlet Boundary
W1
V2
Static Mesh Region
U=V=0
Figure (2. 27) Domain Decomposition

The dynamic region was meshed in a triangular mesh and others meshed in a quadrangular mesh.
The dynamic mesh region was subjected to two harmonic motions vertical and torsional. The
mesh was updated due to the motion; a smoothing mesh and local re-meshing options were used.
Using those options, the dynamic mesh was updated and adjusted each time step and re-meshing
were controlled by the size and the shape of the triangular grid; that depended on mesh size and
its skewness. Recommended values for grid height were proposed from literature, table (2.2).
Table (2. 2) recommended mesh height for different shapes.
Author
Body fitted grid
Computational Model
Re
Notes
0.02D
Circular cross section
250-8e-05
D is Diameter
0.028B
Square cross section
2.2e4
B is width
0.02B
Rectangular cross section
2e4
B is longitudinal chord length
0.021B
The Great Belt East Bridge
1.1e5
B is width
0.019B
The Normandally Bridge
1.5e5
B is width
Zhu
0.01B
The Great Belt East Bridge
300
B is width
Cao
<0.04B
The Great belt East Bridge, etc
1.5e5
B is width
height
Vario
Five bridge deck cross sections were studied, figure (2.28). Table (2.3) summarized
computational and mesh characteristics respectively. Lin. Huang, et al. compared results and
wind tunnel analysis and good agreement were found. They concluded that their proposed
computational method is effective can be considered as a practical tool for simulating
aerodynamic flutter derivatives.
42
Figure (2. 28) Geometry of studied sections used in the present study
Table (2. 3) studied models mesh characteristics.
Model
Total mesh
Quadrangular
mesh
P
38192
7213
GA
26300
4804
GB
35037
13541
SA
45939
13597
SB
53909
20268
43
Triangular
mesh
27064
12068
12068
25626
25983
Quadrangular
mesh
3915
9428
9428
6716
6716
Chapter 3
Innovating Aerodynamic Deck shape
3.0. Introduction.
Based on bluff body aerodynamic, the aerodynamic coefficients affected by deck shape.
Aerodynamic coefficients are sensitive to any small changes in deck shape. So, the deck shape
should be studied extensively before deck selection. As discussed in literature experimental or
numerical analysis give approximately the same results. However, for the final stage of design,
experimental work should be conducted for verification and safety requirements.
Deck shape determines the aerodynamic forces acting on cable bridges. Bridge deck generates
the major part of wind load acting on the bridge. As deck shape get smooth, the generated
aerodynamic forces decrease. Having a stiffening bridge girder with a smooth aerodynamic
shape is a challenge. The challenge is that the traditional bridge deck shapes cannot be
considered as an aerodynamic shape such as truss girder, slab on girder or box girder bridges.
Those traditional types have sharp edges that lead to airflow separation and increase drag forces.
During 21st century, engineers studied different solutions for developing a smoother bridge deck.
First, they designed curved box girder as Sutong Bridge. They studied and designed a separated
double box girder with adding a slot in between as Stone Cutter Bridge. Finally, they proposed a
three separate boxes with two slots in between as proposed for Messina Bridge.
This chapter discusses improving and developing bridge deck cross sections. Those proposed
shapes were modeled using CFD techniques for selecting the deck shape that generated low
aerodynamic forces and calculating aerodynamic derivative for this deck shape.
3.1. Deck Shape optimization.

Deck shape design determines the aerodynamic forces acting on cable bridges. Aerodynamic
forces are sensitive to any small changes in deck shape. Deck shape design must follow specific
criteria such as durability, serviceability and low level of risk concerning the bridge operation.
The stiffening girder normally generates the major part of wind loading. For very long span
bridges the tower, cables and equipment also contribute considerably to the overall aerodynamic
behavior of the structure.
3.1.1. Truss Girder

Historically most long-span cable-supported bridges have been built with truss girder in whereas
little attention was paid to maintenance and aerodynamic performance. Trusses can be designed
to exhibit sufficient torsional stiffness to safeguard the bridge against flutter torsional instability
by introducing horizontal top and bottom wind bracing and adapting a truss depth of 1:17044
1:120 of the span length. The flutter resistance can be further enhancement by open longitudinal
slots in the rod deck. Ostenfeld et.al 1970 noted that the drag of the truss section is more than
three times of the streamlined box as shown in figure (3.1)
Figure (3. 1) Drag coefficient for a truss section and streamlined box section.
Truss girders are commonly found to be 15%-20% heavier than box girder designed for the
similar live load. Also, maintenance is difficult, and costs are considerably higher.
3.1.2. Box girder:

The box girder was introduced by Robert Stephenson in the 19th century then perfected into the
thin-walled all-welded structural member as commonly used today. Aerodynamically, the box
section concept holds a promise to reduce lateral wind loading in comparison with truss girder
with truss girder.
A slender airfoil shaped bridge girder would produce minimum drag and efficiently prevent
vortex shedding. Practical bridge decks with an upper surface suitable for traffic can be shaped
with a sufficient low thickness ratio (depth/width) to obtain minimum drag forces.
It is observed that by gradually "streamlining" the rectangle box i.e. by fitting of cantilevered
decks or wedges shape fairing successively, it would sustain more than double the critical wind
speed of the proposed box section, figure (3.2).
45
CD =0.25
CD =0.90
CD =0.34
CD =0.42
Figure (3. 2) Influence of streaming box section on drag forces

A design criterion is to increase the capability to resist higher wind speed by increasing torsional
stiffness and mass of the slotted box. Moreover, it would be useful to minimize structure's dead
load with no or slight decrease in deck stiffness. That may be accomplished by use of the
aerodynamically shaped member and combination between truss and box sections.
It was found that the symmetric shape generates lower forces than non-symmetric; it is clearer
for car aerodynamics, figure (3.3). For symmetrical shape; aerodynamic forces acting on the
upper surface almost the same acting on the lower surface; that means low lift force acting on the
deck shape. Figure (3.4) shows a sketch of aerodynamic forces acting on symmetric and nonsymmetric airfoils.
Figure (3. 3) Drag forces for symmetric and non-symmetric shapes

46
Figure (3. 4) Lift forces for the symmetric and non-symmetric airfoil.
Width over depth ratio has a significant effect on aerodynamic forces; as this ratio increases drag
forces decreases and the shape is considered to be more aerodynamic.
Figure (3. 5) Width over depth ratio effect.

The shape has a significant impact on aerodynamic forces; with streamlined and airfoil-shaped
tubing having less air resistance than nearly any others, also, a thin airfoil section will always
generate less drag than a thick airfoil section for the same airfoil length as shown in figure (3.6).
Figure (3. 6) streamlining effect on drag forces.

From the discussion above, devolving bridge deck shape cross-section is a complicated issue.
The target is to minimize lift and drag forces acting on the bridge deck. Some parameters that
decrease or increase the other force such as width over span ratio; as it increases, drag forces
decreases, and lift forces increases for the same section. This statement addressed the research to
concern with modification effect on all aerodynamic forces that will be clear in the following
section.
3.2. Developing Deck Shape

47
Based on the discussion before, six deck shapes were suggested considering aerodynamic aspect.
Each deck section has three lanes and a train way per each direction as discussed in the
following.
3.2.1. Shape 1 (Elliptical Cross-Section)

This cross section was first introduced by Astiz and Ansersen in 1990 (H.Ostenfeld and Larsen
1992) as a proposal for Gibraltar Bridge. The closed elliptical shape cross section has the
advantages that the drag forces may be reduced to approximately 30% of the streamlined box
girder for equal width. Also, traffic will be completely sheltered to high wind speed.
B/d was approximately 7.00 and truck clearance 5.45 m. Each direction had three lanes with total
width each direction 12.00 m and two ways for trains, Figure. (3.7).
63.43
9.75
9.16
13.05
5.42
7.37
SECTION A-A
Figure (3. 7) Proposed DECK 1 Cross section.
3.2.2. Shape 2 (Elliptical cross-section with 2m gap)

Few modifications for Deck 1were performed to reduce lift forces acting on it. Two 2 meters
slots were added between train and truck ways width is 2.0 m as shown in Figure.(3.8) (Huang et
al. 2009). B/d was approximately 7.14.
9.00
11.18
9.16
2.00
5.42
7.37
SECTION A-A
24.96
2.00
10.50
2.00
24.96
9.00
9.16
5.42
11.18
11.18
5.42
SECTION B-B
Figure (3. 8) Proposed DECK 2 Cross section.
3.2.3. Shape 3
This section is the same as Deck 2, but the gap width was increased to be 3.0 m as shown in
figure (3.9)
48
9.00
12.18
9.15
3.00
5.42
7.37
SECTION A-A
25.96
3.00
10.50
25.96
3.00
12.18
12.18
9.16
5.42
5.42
SECTION B-B
Figure (3. 9) Proposed DECK 3 Cross section
3.2.4. Shape 4
To avoid any construction issue occurring due to elliptical deck shape, Deck 4cross section was
studied. This cross section is the traditional streamlined box section. The cross section is
modified to make full use of the depth. The train will go through the truss, and the traffic will be
on the top chord. The width over depth ratio is 5.43, Figure. (3.10).
4.00
15.00
15.00
4.50
4.00
4.50
5.50
5.50
22.50
3.2.5. Shape 5
Regarding aerodynamic forces, deck 4 was modified to reduce width over span ratio to be 7.14,
Figure (3.11)
4.00
6.00
15.00
15.00
9.00
5.50
5.50
49
6.00
4.00
3.2.6. Shape 6
Deck 6 is a modification for Deck 5; Deck 6 is modified to dissipate lift forces acting on bridge
deck as shown in Figure.1 F. Two slots were added between train and truck ways; its width is 3.0
m. Width over span ratio is 7.92, Figure. (3.12)
8.50
38.50
8.50
9.00
3.00
3.00
5.50
4.00
4.00
3.2.7. Sutong Bridge deck

Sutong Bridge longest existing cable-stay bridge in the world with available data and
results. This section was chosen to identify proposed section results, Figure.(3.13). Table 1
summarizes studied deck shape.
Figure (3. 13) Sutong bridge deck

Table (1) summarized studied deck shapes. Those shapes were modeled using CFD
Table (3. 1) Studied deck shapes
Slot
Name
Sketch
Description
width/depth(B/D)
width
Deck 1
Closed Ellipse
NA
7
Deck 2
Ellipse with slots
2
7.14
Deck 3
Ellipse with slots
3
7.25
Deck 4
Closed Truss
NA
5.43
Deck 5
Closed Truss
NA
7.14
Deck 6
Closed Truss with slots 2
7.92
Sutong
Streamlined Box
NA
3.3. CFD Modeling

The proposed deck sections were modeled using CFD technique. Fluent/ Ansys is a commercial
software, was recommended in the literature for such study. The two-dimensional steady-state
analysis was prepared for each deck. The bridge deck was assumed to be a rigid bluff body and
subjected to uniform fluid flow. The Reynolds number was taken as 5*105 (based on the
dimension perpendicular to flow). Fluid density was 1.226 Kg/m3. Deck shape was scaled down
to 1:100.
50
3.3.1. Domain decomposition:

The model was prepared as discussed in section 2.4 using Fluent/ Ansys software. A Twodimensional steady-state analysis was prepared for each deck. The domain was meshed using an
unstructured mesh of quadrilateral elements. Figures 0000 to 0000 show CFD models for six
deck shapes. The boundary conditions were assumed as the following:
Zero-slip and turbulence at the fluid-surface interfaces of the bridge deck
Zero-slip at the top and bottom boundary of the problem domain
Velocity at entry
Pressure at the exit.
Figure (3. 14) CFD model for Proposed Deck 1.

51
52
3.3.2. Meshing:
The domain discretized into subdomains (mesh). Mesh Height (yw) values are summarized,
Table (3.2). From this table, the ratio yw to characteristic dimension is very different even Re at
the same order.
Standard k- model: The turbulent kinetic energy, k and the rate of dissipation of turbulent
kinetic energy, are modeled. Regarding literature, Standard k- model provides a realistic
picture of the flow in case of turbulent flow in pipes and channels.
1.42
1.68
1.00
1.00
4.38
53
0.0012
0.085
1.393
Table (3. 2) recommended body fitted grid height

Author Body fitted Computational Model Re
Notes
grid height
Vario 0.02D
Circular cross section 250-8e- D is Diameter
05
0.028B
Square cross section
2.2e4
B is width
0.02B
Rectangular
cross 2e4
B is longitudinal
section
chord length
0.021B
The Great Belt East 1.1e5
B is width
Bridge
0.019B
The
Normandally 1.5e5
B is width
Bridge
Zhu
0.01B
The Great Belt East 300
B is width
Bridge
Cao
<0.04B
The Great belt East 1.5e5
B is width
Bridge, etc
The pressure-velocity coupling is achieved using the pressure implicit SIMPLE algorism
Based on the methodology discussed before, static aerodynamic coefficients were calculated as
in the following equations. A comparison between studied shapes aerodynamic coefficients' and
Sutong bridge deck illustrated chapter 4
Lift
Drag
Moment
alfa
Wind direction
angle
Figure (3. 20) Shows drag coefficient for studied deck shaped.
Equation (3. 1)
Equation (3. 2)
Equation (3. 3)
Regarding the discussed modeling criteria, six models were prepared, and aerodynamic
coefficients were calculated and illustrated in the chapter (4). As its necessity, it is recommended
to mention that deck shape 3 generated lower aerodynamic forces than others. Deck 3 was
selected for flutter analysis as in the following section.
3.4. Flutter Analysis

Motion-dependent forces will be generated when a bluff or streamlined body is set in steady ow
under a prescribed motion. These forces develop aerodynamic damping and possibly aeroelastic
instability at sufciently high ow speeds. Various forms for the linear expressions for Lift and
Moment have been employed. The classical theoretical (and some experimental) work used
54
complex form
for representing the flutter oscillation. Scanlan and Tomoko were firstly
developed a linear form as in the following:
(
)(
(
).
Equation 1
/
In this form, there are six aerodynamic derivatives. Later on, Scanlan improved those equations
that involve eight aerodynamic derivatives as follows [20]:
(
)(
(
).
Equation 2
/
Where:
is the air density;

and
L and M cab be written as the following:
( )
( )
( )
( )
Where: CL (t) and CM (t) are the non-dimensional lift and moment coefficient at time instance t.
The following procedure can extract the aerodynamic derivatives: (1) impose a forced harmonic
motion in vertical (h) or torsion () on the rigid cross-section and carry out Finite Volume
Method (FVM) simulations using FLUENT;
(2) apply the least square method to t stable C L (t) and CM (t) curves, and obtain amplitude CL
and CM and their shift phase angle
and
.
Flutter Derivatives for pure vertical motion
are in the following:
( )
( )
( )
( )
55
Equation (3. 4(
For pure torsional motion

( )
( )
( )
( )
Equation (3. 5(
3.4.1. Domain Decomposition method

Computational region is discretized into static mesh region, region, dynamic mesh region, and
rigid boundary layer mesh, figure (3.22). The rigid boundary mesh region is connected to the
bridge section and structured quadrangular mesh used for. The height of the grid can be
controlled as proposed by Haug et al. and discussed in section 3.3.2.The dynamic mesh deformed
under prescribed vertical or torsional motion at every iteration time step and triangular mesh
used for such representation. The size of dynamic mesh region is defined by the bridge section
scale and its vibration amplitude. The sizes of those three regions are given in table (3.3) which
proposed by Huang et al. for The Second Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge.
Y
U=V=0
W2
W4
W5
W6
V1
V3
Bridge Section
V5
V6 Rigid Boundary Layer Mesh
V4
Dynamic Mesh Region
V2
Static Mesh Region
U=V=0
Figure (3. 21) Shows Domain Decomposition

Table (3. 3) Domain decomposition factors
Width
Size (xB)
Height
Size (xB)
W1
10.0
V1
10.0
W2
20.0
V2
10.0
W3
1.3
V3
0.7
W4
1.8
V4
0.7
W5
0.6
V5
0.2
W6
0.8
V6
0.2
56
P=0
Inlet Boundary u=U, v=0
W3
Outlet Boundary
W1
3.4.2. Motion Amplitude

Flutter derivatives calculations were based on low amplitude for motion. Vibration frequency
affects lift and moment forces significantly. For very high frequencies, lift and moment change
rapidly; for low frequencies lift and moment change slowly. For more accurate results, vibration
frequency and its corresponding amplitude can be limited to the reasonable practical range. For
practical computation, this expression is proposed.
Equation (3. 6)
Considering Equation (3.5), the inputting energy is nearly identical in a period of each frequency
component of the combination vibration. Depending on this equation, the oscillation amplitude
of the lift and moment of each frequency in combined vibration will be approximately the same.
The forced vertical motion represents bridge bending motion; the amplitude to width ratio was
proposed to be 0.05.
3.4.3. Proposed DECK 3:

The proposed Deck shape 3 modeled as discussed above to determine its flutter derivatives'. The
computational bridge section is a 1:100 scale. The domain decomposition and its sizes' as in
figure (3.22) and table (3.3). The computational grid is shown in figure (3.23). The rigid
boundary layer mesh has 45000 structured quadrangular grids. The dynamic mesh region meshed
by 20000 triangular grids. The static mesh region meshed by 10000 structured quadrangular
grids.
The deck cross section modeled with scale 1:100. The height of body-fitted grid is 1 mm
according to table (3.2). The mean speed of incoming flow is 15 m/sec and the angle of attack is
zero degree. The iteration time step is a 1x10-4 sec. The parameters of the combination vibration
are shown in table (3.4)
Figure (3. 22) CFD model for determining flutter derivatives.

57
The simulation covered reduced wind speed range 2<U/fB<12 at increment 2; twelve runs was
performed.
Table (3. 4) Reduced velocity and forced motion amplitudes.
U/FB
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
f (Hz)
10.92
5.46
3.64
2.73
2.18
1.82
hi (mm) 30.00
42.43
51.96
60.00
67.08
73.48
i
3.00
4.24
5.20
6.00
6.71
7.35
Where:
is the reduced velocity; f is forced motion frequency;
is the intial vertical motion
and is the intial torsional angle.

The simulation covered reduced wind speed range 2<U/fB<12 at increment 2; twelve runs were
performed according to values shown in Table 3. Aerodynamic derivatives obtained as equations
4 and 5. Results were shown in the chapter (4).
58
CHAPTER 4
Aerodynamic Results
4.1. Introduction
This chapter divided into two parts, the first one discussed proposing an aerodynamic deck shape
and the second one discussed calculating flutter derivatives for proposed deck shape 3.
Suspension bridges are sophisticated structures that have instability problem due to its flexibility.
Different parameters affect its stability from Aerodynamic forces, statical system, and girder
stiffness. The effects of parameters on the results are discussed in the following sections
4.2. Static aerodynamic analysis

Six bridge deck cross sections were proposed, and static aerodynamic analysis were performed
using Ansys/Fluent. The modeling criterion was verified with experimental results in literature as
discussed in section 00000. Aerodynamic forces generated by studied bridge deck shapes were
compared with Sutong Bridge deck shape.
Figure (4. 1) Deck shape 1 streamline (3D view)
59
Figure (4. 2) Deck shape 1air streamlines (2D view).
Figure (4. 3) Deck shape 1 air flow vectors (2D view)
60
Figure (4. 5) Deck shape 1 Pressure distribution around.
61
Figure (4. 6) Deck shape 1 velocity distribution around.
Figure (4. 7) Deck shape 2 air streamlines (2D view).
62
63
64
65

The elliptical shape Deck 1 was the smoothest shape with low turbulence generated around the
deck. Air streamline passes around the deck with practically no turbulence; however the
pressure at the leading edge increased up to 145 N/mm2, figure (0000). The pressure distribution
around the deck was almost symmetric around the chord level (upper and lower), figure (0000).
This pressure distribution minimizes lift forces acting on the deck. On the other hand, as the
angle of attack get higher the pressure distribution on the deck shape modified and the lift forces
changes according to wind direction, figure (000). Not only the pressure distribution changes, but
also the velocity distribution changes, figure (000). The drag forces increase due to that the deck
perpendicular area subjected to air flow increased. The moment forces acting on the bridge deck
increased on the deck as wind and angle of attack increased.
Figure (4. 15) Deck shape 6 pressure distribution around for the angle of attack -10 degree.
66
Figure (4. 16) Deck shape 1 velocity distribution around for the angle of attack -10 degree.
For improving the elliptical shape Deck 1, two slots were added for improving the aerodynamic
performance. Two slot widths were studied 2 meters and 3 meter Deck 2 and Deck 3
respectively; this small change in slot width reduces aerodynamic forces. Those two slots
increase width over depth ratio; that made the deck shape smoother and helped in distributing
aerodynamic forces on the Deck 2 and 3. The aerodynamic forces were almost constant despite
the change of wind direction angle. Those slots help in reducing pressure acting on the bridge
deck, figure (000); the air flow vented through slots and reduced aerodynamic forces Deck 2and
3.
Figure (4. 17) Deck shape 3 pressure distribution around for the angle of attack -10 degree.
67
68
69
70
71
72

Smooth box sections were studied as discussed in sections (00000). Deck shapes 4, 5 and 6 had
sharp edges comparing to studied elliptical shapes. Those sharp edges interrupt air flow that led
to pressure and velocity concentration on those edges. The velocity and pressure are also affected
by B/D ratio. Deck 4 had the minimum B/d ratio that led to an increase of air velocity around the
deck; the air streamlines passed the deck and reattached away of the trailing edge of the deck,
figure (000); also, the negative pressure raised. For Deck 5, the B/d increased, and the air
velocity around the deck decreased compared to Deck 4, figure (00000). Adding two slots for
Deck 6 decreased aerodynamic forces and made the studied box shape smoother. Figures (0000,
0000 and 0000) shows static aerodynamic coefficient CD, CL and CM respectively for the
studied deck shapes
73
1.20
1.00
DECK 1
Cd
0.80
DECK 2
DECK 3
0.60
DECK 4
0.40
DECK 5
0.20
-10
-8
-6
DECK 6
0.00
-2
0
-4
Sutong Bridge
2
10
Angle of attack
Figure (4. 30) drag coefficient (CD) for studied deck shapes.
1.00
0.50
DECK 1
0.00
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-0.50
10
DECK 2
DECK 3
Cl
-10
DECK 4
-1.00
DECK 5
-1.50
DECK 6
-2.00
Sutong
-2.50
Angle of attack
Figure (4. 31) Lift coefficient (CL) for studied deck shapes.
74
0.20
CM
-10
-8
-6
-4
0.10
DECK 1
0.00
DECK 2
-2
0
-0.10
10
DECK 3
DECK 4
-0.20
DECK 5
DECK 6
-0.30
Sutong
-0.40
Angle of attack
Figure (4. 32) Moment coefficient (CM) for studied deck shapes.
Numerical Results show that the elliptical shape (Deck 1) generates a lower drag forces than
other sections. As slots width increases, drag forces decreases. Elliptical deck shapes 1, 2 and 3
generate lower drag forces than closed box deck shapes 4,5and 6; and both groups generate
lower values than Sutong Bridge.
Elliptical cross-sections 1, 2 and 3 generate lower lift forces than other studded sections. As slot
width increases, lift forces are approximately constant against the change in wind angle. As
bridge deck shape get smoother, aerodynamic forces decrease. Closed truss sections generate
approximately double lift forces than elliptical cross sections. Adding two slots for Deck 5, Deck
6 generates half lift forces of Deck 5. Elliptical deck shapes generated lower moment acting on
closed truss. For decks 4, 5 and 6 as B/d ratio increases, aerodynamic forces decreases. Results
proof that as bridge deck cross-section gets smoother aerodynamic forces generated by the deck
decrease.
4.2. Flutter derivatives calculation

The simulation covered reduced wind speed range 2<U/fB<12 at increment 2 as recommended in
the literature. Twelve runs were performed according to values shown in Table 5.1. Figures 5.4,
to 5.7 show forced motion and corresponding aerodynamic coefficient. The time step was
0.0001secon, and the model run for 10 seconds; 2000 iteration for each step with tolerance
0.001. An I7 core computer with 16 gigabits Ram used for the analysis and the model analysis
took more than 48 hours.
Table (5. 1) Reduced velocity and forced motion amplitudes.
U/FB
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
f (Hz)
10.92
5.46
3.64
2.73
2.18
1.82
hi (mm) 30.00
42.43
51.96
60.00
67.08
73.48
i
3.00
4.24
5.20
6.00
6.71
7.35
75
The forced motion simulated the bridge deck motion under wind loads. The bridge oscillations
were divided into two separate motions vertical and torsional motions representing bending and
torsional motion respectively. As the bridge oscillated vertical or torsional, the velocity and
pressure distributions mutated, figures (4.33 to 4.52). This caused a change in aerodynamic
forces and calculated aerodynamic coefficients.
Figure (4. 33) Pressure distribution around deck under forced vertical motion at 0.05 second
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
Figure (4. 53) Forced rotational motion at time 0.5 second
83
Figure (4. 58) Pressure distribution around deck under forced Torsional motion at 0.05 second
84
85
86
87
88
Figure (4. 67) Pressure distribution around deck under forced Torsional motion at 0.50
second
89
second
second
90
second
second
91
second
second
92
second
second
93
second
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
CL
Forced Motion
CL time history (U/fB =6).
94
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
CM
Forced Motion
CM time history (U/fB =6).
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
-4.00
-6.00
Cm
Forced Motion
Figure (4. 80) forced non-dimensional torsional bending 0 simulated and corresponding CM time
history (U/fB =6).
Aerodynamic derivatives obtained as equations 4 and 5 and shown in Fig. 20 and 21.
95
0
0
10
12
-2
-4
H1
H2
-6
H3
-8
H4
-10
-12
U/fB
Figure (4. 81) Flutter Derivatives H1, H2, H3, and H4

12
10
8
A1
A2
A3
A4
2
0
0
6
U/fB
10
12
Figure (4. 82) Flutter Derivatives A1, A2, A3, and A4

H1 decreases slowly to Vr =10 then H1 increases. H2, H4 are approximately constant then
decrease slowly. H3 decreases slowly to Vr =4, then increases slowly; finally at Vr =6, H3
decreases steeply, figure (4.81). A1 gradually increased till Vr = 8 and then increased fast. A2
almost has a positive constant value. A3 and A4 increase gradually by the increase of Vr; however
the A3 increasing rate is greater than A4, Figure (4.82)
4.3. Elliptical deck design.

The proposed bridge deck shape properties were calculated as discussed in Section 4.1 and
summarized in Table (5.2)
Table (5. 2) Proposed deck properties
96
Area
Bending Inertia (I)
Horizontal Inertia (I)
Torsional Inertia
(m2)
(m4)
(m4)
(J)
1.5
8.7245
2295
10
97
CHAPTER 5
Innovating ultra-long span bridge
5.0. Introduction.
Girder bridges have existed for millennia in a variety of forms depending on resources available.
The oldest types of bridges are the beam, arch and swing bridges, and they are still built today.
These types of bridges have been built by human beings since ancient times, with the initial
design being much simpler than what we enjoy today. As technology advanced the methods were
improved and were based on the utilization and manipulation of rock, stone, mortar and other
materials that would serve to be stronger and longer.
A plate girder is a girder that has been fabricated by welding plates together to create the
desired shape. The fabricator receives large plates of steel in the desired thickness, then cuts the
flanges and web from the plate in the desired length and shape. Plate girders can have a greater
height than rolled steel girders and are not limited to standardized shapes. The ability to
customize a girder to the exact load conditions allows the bridge design to be more efficient.
Plate girder can be used for spans between 10 meters and more than 100 meters (33 feet to more
than 330 feet). Stiffeners are occasionally welded between the compression flange and the web
to increase the strength of the girder.
5.1.1. Box girder.

The girder bridge is in a form of hollow box parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bridge. The
box comprises either pre-stressed concrete, structural steel, or a composite of steel and
reinforced. The traditional shapes of the girder are rectangular and trapezoidal cross-section;
however, smoothed shaped box is used for reducing aerodynamic forces acting on the bridge
deck. The Box girder is commonly used for curved bridge or relatively long span bridges than
slab-on-girder bridges; also, it is used in cable bridges.
5.1.2. Truss girder

Truss girder is an old bridge system; straight elements connected in triangular units. Elements
carried tension or compression forces for static loads or both for the case of dynamic loads.
5.1. Elliptical deck shape design
98
5.1.1. Deck dimensions

The proposed elliptical shape generates lower aerodynamic forces than other studied shapes.
From aerodynamic aspect, the closed elliptical shape was an old shape for the wing in airplanes,
figure (5.1). This shape was closed streamlined box supported by longitudinal and transverse
steel diaphragm.
Figure (5. 1) Wing statical system

The dimensions of bridge deck elliptical shape and applied loads are greater than those applied to
wings; the design of an elliptical shape deck is a challenge structurally. The challenge is how to
ensure enough clear height for truck and how to minimize the deck own weight.
The expected traffic that will move on the bridge must be studied. This study should specify
predicted truck dimensions and loads. For example, Sutong Bridge has three lanes each
direction; Akashi Kayoka Bridge has three lanes on the truss top chord. Both bridges have no
height limitations. For the proposed Messina Bridge a train way was added to three traffic lanes
per direction, figure (5.2).
Figure (5. 2) Proposed Messina Bridge
99
Figure (5. 3) Akashi Kayoka bridge.

Most long span cable bridges have three lanes per direction and may or may not have a train. For
elliptical cross sections there is a height limitation. This research proposed an elliptical deck
shape has three lanes and a train way per direction.
Ellipses have two mutually perpendicular axes about which the ellipse is symmetric. These axes
intersect at the center of the ellipse due to this symmetry. The larger of these two axes, which
corresponds to the largest distance between antipodal points on the ellipse, is called the major
axis. The smaller of these two axes and the smallest distance across the ellipse is called the minor
axis, figure (5.4)
Figure (5. 4) Ellipse Characteristics

Required lanes width controlls major axis length and maximum traffic height controlls minor
axis length. The ratio between major and minor axis should vary from 6 to 8 that ensure low
turbulent on the surface of the deck. Three traffic lanes and train way were proposed per each
direction, and the clear height was 5.50m, figure (5.5).
100
68.42
9.00
12.18
3.00
5.42
9.15
7.37
SECTION A-A
25.96
3.00
10.50
9.16
25.96
3.00
12.18
12.18
5.42
5.42
SECTION B-B
Figure (5. 5) Proposed Elliptical Shape

The resultant space beside truck way may be used for pipes or cables, but in this study that was
assumed to be as sidewalk or bicycle lane or emergency lane.
5.1.2. Elliptical deck statical system

The deck system is suggested to be a combination of a three-dimensional truss and a box section
systems. The truss determined the elliptical form and increased the lateral and torsional stiffness.
The elliptical beams spaced by 5.50m acts as a diaphragm or e-ring beam that connect all
longitudinal members. Moreover, they connect box girder with the truss. Longitudinal truss plan
acts as Vierendeel Girder, figure (5.6). Additional top and bottom bracing were added to increase
deck torsional and transverse stiffness.
I
II
33.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
Var.
Var.
0.75
II
Figure (5. 6) typical vertical bracing for one span

The box section was three separated box girders, figure (5.7). Left and right boxes were used for
truck lanes and the inner box for train as proposed Messina Bridge. From aerodynamic design,
those boxes were seperated by 3.0 m slots. The Vertical hangers carring the deck are spaced
every 33.0 m.
Figure (5. 7) Separated Boxes

101
5.1.3 Design Criteria

The design process was approximately checked; reasonable elements cross section were
suggested; then the section adequacy were checked. This process was carried in an iterative
process, figure (5.8). The truss sections were chosen as a pipes for architecture aspects. The
designs followed the AISC. The box section was suggested similar to Sutong Bridge deck cross
section, figure (5.9). The box section also designed (checked). A 10 cm Concrete slab added on
the top of box section, the box section was assumed to behave as a composite section (shear
dowels are to be introduced)
Start
Assume member
dimension
Calculate Loads
Unsafe
Check
stresses
safe
Start
Figure (5. 8) Design truss section process
Figure (5. 9) Proposed Box section

Table (5. 3) Material Properties
Material Parameter
Definition
Modulus of Elasticity
Unit weight
Steel
Poissons ratio
Yield strength
Unit weight
Concrete
Poissons ratio
Yield strength
Cable
Unit weight
T
Ultimate tensile strength

102
Properties
200 GPa
77 KN/m3
0.3
350 MPa
24.87 GPa
24 KN/m3
0.3
30 MPa
205 GPa
82.4
KN/m3
1.6 GPa
5.1.4. Loads
5.1.4.1. Dead Loads
Own weight was calculated from members weights; that was calculated on an iterative
process. The section was assumed then own weight was calculated, and straining action and
actual stresses were calculated. If the elements stresses were lower than allowable stress,then the
assumed sections were chosen; else, the assumed sections were increased until resultant stresses
were lower allowable stresses.
Super Imposed Dead Load (SIDL) was assumed to be 250 kg/m2.
5.1.4.2. Live loads
Codes and standards provide live load models for short and medium span bridges. However, the
models are not convenient for long span bridges due to the change of the structure type and
traffic pattern. The critical traffic does not depend on the heavy truck only. The heavy traffic
does not have significant influence on the bridge design. Moreover, some vehicles, their weight,
and percent of loaded span led to a search for predicting real traffic data. A database for traffic
data were collected from different places, and then a numerical procedure for predicting traffic
jam scenarios was developed using the database.
Observing traffic statistics in the United States for the last 30years, it was found that the number
of the vehicle miles logged annually on American highways has increased 225%, with heavy
truck traffic increasing 550%. Moreover, some percentage of trucks runs overweight, particularly
if it is to their economic advantage.
This study was implemently the Euro Code for designing deck cross section and truss elements.
The Eurocode was selected due to it is widely usage and may be implemented in the future
abroad. The Euro Code 1 Part 2 applies to bridges with spans from 5 to 200 m, and carriageway
width up to 42 m. It presents four models for determining the main vertical loads from traffic.
5.1.4.2.1. Traffic Load Models
(1) Load Model 1 (LM1) consists of concentrated and uniformly distributed loads, that cover
most of the effects of the traffic of trucks and cars, figure (5.10). The code specifies live load to
be used in each traffic lane. Therefore, there is no need to introduce multilane factors. It is used
for general and local verifications.
Location
Axle Load
Distributed load
Lane 1
300KN
9KN/m2
Lane 2
200KN
2.5KN/m2
Lane 3
100KN
2.5KN/m2
Other lanes
0
2.5KN/m2
Remaining areas
0
2.5KN/m2
103
Figure (5. 10) Load Model No. 1

(2) Load Model 2 (LM2) consists of a single axle load of 400 KN, which covers the dynamic
effects of the normal traffic on short structural members. The distance between wheels is 2 m.
The contact surface of each wheel should be taken as a rectangle of sides 0.35 m and 0.60 m.
When relevant, only one wheel of 200 KN may be taken into account, Figure (5.11)
Figure (5. 11) Load Model No.2 (single axis)

(3) Load Model 3 (LM3) consists of sets of axle loads representing special (carrying heavy
loads) vehicles, which can travel on routes permitted for abnormal loads. It is intended for
general and local verifications.
(4) Load Model 4 (LM4) represents crowd loading of 5.0 KN/m2. It is intended only for general
verifications, and it is particularly relevant for bridges in or near town areas.
The first step before load application is to determine carriageway width and number of national
lanes. The walk way is not accessible to vehicular traffic and protected, so the carriageway width
w is given by the clear distance between safety barriers, therefore, w = 11.0m. As each national
lane width is 3.0 m width; the maximum number of lanes can be considered is given by:
* +
* +
Equation (5. 1)
Moreover, the maximum width for the remaining area was

Equation (5. 2)
104
5.1.4.2.2. Train Loads

Rail traffic action is defined by five models of rail loading in Euro code. However, the normal
rail traffic loading was studied only in this research. The normal model is Load Model 71, figure
(5.12). Load model represents vertical loading static effect. This load includes self-weight of
non-structural elements such as noise and safety barriers, signal ducts, cables and overhead line
equipment.
Figure (5. 12) Load Model 71 and characteristic values for vertical loads.
This load is not the actual burden, or the real dynamic load effect of those loads should be
considered. The dynamic factor that increases the static load effect depends on the level of
maintenance of trucks.
For carefully maintained trucks, it is
Equation (5. 3)
For standard maintained trucks, it is

Equation (5. 4)
Where
is the determinant length associated with . This study assumed maintained trucks.
was calculated as three times cross girder spacing (Table 8.2a Eurocode1
For the elliptical deck was calculated as following:
Equation (5. 5)
5.1.4.2. Wind load

Equivalent static load for wind action was considered for designing the bridge deck. The load
was calculating using aerodynamic coefficients determined before. Aerodynamic loads were
calculated as following equations.
Equation (5. 6)
Equation (5. 7)
Equation (5. 8)
Wind load acting on the bridge deck was divided into three loads Drag, Lift, and moment acting
in horizontal, vertically and torsionally, respectively. The wind direction angle equaled zero; for
105
zero angles of attack the horizontal forces represented the drag forces and the vertical forces
represented the lift force. The aerodynamic coefficients were 0.21; 0.1 and -0.05 for drag, lift and
moment, respectively.
For calculating the wind forces, the wind velocity was required. The designed wind speed was as
Sutong Bridge 40m/sec. Moreover, by substituting in equation 5.6,5.7, and 5.8 static
aerodynamic forces were as in table (4.1).
Table (5. 4) static aerodynamic forces acting on the bridge Deck
Drag forces (t/m)
13.37
lift forces (t/m)
6.37
Moment forces (t.m/m)
-41.4
Those forces were applied as distributed load acting on main elements of the bridge as elliptical
beams, longitudinal beams and box section. For the box section, the acting wind loads were
applied as distributed load. For determining the distributed load values, the wind load was
divided by the subjected deck length, and then each member carried loads acting on it from
centerline to centerline. For moment load, it was applied as twist moment acting on each
elliptical beam, and the value equaled the spacing multiplying by acting moment value.
5.1.5. Deck Modeling

Four continuous spans were modeled using SAP2000 under operating loads to determine
elements cross sections, figure (5.13). Applied loads followed section 4.2.4 considering the
different cases of loading to determine maximum straining actions. Truss elements were modeled
as frame element. The elliptical beam was a closed beam with no intermediate hinges that could
carry moment or shear forces. Bracing members carried axial forces and moment forces release
option was assigned to them, figure (5.15)
106
Figure (5. 13) four spans model using SAP2000.
Figure (5. 14) Deck model using SAP 2000.
Figure (5. 15) Resale assignment on top bracing.
107
The box meshed into approximately 1m2 for accuracy; the box was modeled as a shell element,
figure (5.16). Frame elements were divided into small elements to connect shell elements nodes.
This study concerns only with the preliminary design and dimensioning only.
Figure (5. 16) box section model in SAP2000

Two methods of hanging the bridge to the main cable were studied. The first one was hanging
from the top cord of the truss and the second one was from box section level. From the
architectural view, both are the same; although there is a significant difference between the two
methods. In the first that meant the truss carried the box section and all loads transferred from the
box to the truss then to the hangers; the second meant that the box section carried itself and all
other loads carried by the truss transferred to the box then to the hangers. The resultant weight
for the second case was more than half of the first one that because the truck and train loads were
carried by the truss elements, so the elements were great.
5.1.6. Deck properties calculation

A Three-dimensional truss combined with three separate box girders act as a beam. Long cable
span bridge is a complicated structure that needs simplification in modeling for analysis. The
spine model is a recommended modeling criterion for long span bridges, section (5.3). In spine
model, the deck was modeled as one beam. This simplification may be considered a problem in
how to calculate deck inertia and properties of such a combined structure. Inertia calculation was
based on a structure mechanics using a Finite Element (FE) Software SAP 2000. A simple beam
for the bridge deck was modeled considering all details of the truss and boxes; a concentrated
load was applied and from the calculated deformation the corresponded to inertia was calculated
from structure mechanics, figure (5.17).
108
Figure (5. 17) Simple Beam load and displacement

For Inertia X and Y, a 33.0 m bridge deck span modeled as a simple beam. The proposed deck
(truss and boxes) was assumed to deform together with no local deformations that was done by
assigning beam constraints for all elements. A 1000 ton concentered load was assigned, and the
corresponding deformation compared with the following equation.
Equation (5. 9)
Equation (5. 10)
For torsional stiffness, the same approach discussed above was followed. A torque was applied at
the end of the cantilever beam, figure (5.18). The resultant rotation expressed in equation (5.11
and 5.12) was applied. A beam constraint assigned to all nodes of the deck model to move
together as a rigid beam; it also was used for connecting shell and frame elements to act together.
It prevented local deformation of frame elements. A single span deck model was modeled where
the model can be easily sketched, figure (5.18). The deck modeled as a cantilever fixed from one
end and free from the other. The torque moment was applied at the free end, and the
corresponding torsional angle was calculated. The torsional stiffness was calculated. Table (5.2)
summarize proposed deck properties.
Figure (5. 18) Twisting of a beam

Equation (5. 11)
Equation (5. 12)
Where:
T: is the applied torque (Twisting moment);
J: is torsional stiffness;
109
G: Modulus of rigidity;
L: beam length.
Figure (5. 19) Deck model sketch for calculating torsional stiffness.
Table (5. 5) Proposed deck properties
Area (m2)
1.5
4
Bending Inertia (I) (m )
8.7245
Horizontal Inertia (I) (m4)
2295
Torsional Inertia (J)
10
5.2. Cable systems

Cable-supported bridges are distinguished by their ability to overcome long spans. The cable
spans may vary from 200 to 2000 meters. The major challenge for cable bridges is to cover long
span as Messina Bridge 3300 m and Gibraltar Bridge 5000 m. In most of the cable-supported
bridges, the structural system can be discretized into four main components:
1. The deck (or stiffening girder);
2. The cable system (supporting the deck);
3. The pylons (-or towers- supporting the cable system);
4. The anchor blocks (or anchor piers supporting the cable system vertically and or
horizontally at the ends).
Types of Cable Bridge characterized by the configuration of the cable system. The major types
that are widely used are Suspension |Bridge and Cable Stay Bridge. A new system was proposed,
is a combination of suspension and cable-stayed systems; called Hybrid cable system.
For cable supported bridges, the cable system governs the design process; each cable system
distributes loads and straining actions that affect the quantity of steel required (own weight). The
following section is an attempt to define those types of cable bridges concerning the structural
system and major components.
5.2.1. Cable stays bridges.

The concept of a cable-stayed bridge is simple. A bridge carries mainly vertical loads acting on
the girder, figure (5.20). The stay cables provide intermediate supports for the girder so that it
can span a long distance. The structural form of a cable-stayed bridge is a series of overlapping
triangles comprising the pylon, the cables, and the girder. All these members are under
predominantly axial forces, with the cables under tension and both the pylon and the girder under
110
compression. Axially loaded members are more efficient than flexural members; that contributes
to the economy of a cable-stayed bridge.
Figure (5. 20) the concept of cable-stayed bridge

Cable Stay Bridge has a longer span bridge than traditional bridges; currently there are designs
for 1200 m. The cable stay bridge consists of one or more pylon carried bridge deck (steel or
concrete). There are two major types of cable bridges depend on the cable arrangements, harp ,
fan system and semi-fan, Figure (5.21)
(Harp)
(Fan)
111
(Semi-fan)
Figure (5. 21) cable arrangements
A harp-type cable arrangement offers a clean and delicate appearance because an array of
parallel cables will always appear parallel irrespective of the viewing angle. It also allows an
earlier start of girder construction because the cable anchorages in the tower begin rear to the
pylon.
A fan-type cable arrangement can be very attractive, especially for a single-plane cable system.
Because of the cable slopes are steeper, the axial force in the girder, which is an accumulation of
all horizontal components of cable forces, is smaller. This feature is advantageous for longer
span bridges where compression in the girder may control the design.
The semi-fan cable stay bridge was used for different bridges all over the world due to its
efficiency, figure (5.22). In semi-fan system, the cables are distributed over the pylon
The cable-stayed bridge can be simulated as girder elastically supported (beam on elastic
foundation- springs supports). The stayed cables act as an elastic support.
Studies discussed the three systems of cable stays from different aspects as deck, cable and pylon
forces. The forces were translated into required material and costs. The cost of the deck for the
semi-fan system was the lowest, figure (5.22). Olfat Sarhang 2012 studied different parameters
for comparing those three systems and to what extent various parameters affect the cost of the
bridge. Pylon height to span ratio was one of the studied parameters, and it was found that the
optimum ratio was varied from 1 to 1.3 of the central span. The cost of the pylon increases as
this ratio increased.
Also, the number of stays cable affects the cost of the bridge, as number of stay cables increases
the cost of the bridge increases, figure (5.23)
112
Figure (5. 22) Variation of the deck cost with numbers of stay cables in three types of cablestayed bridge.
Figure (5. 23) Variation of Pylon cost with some stay cables in cable-stayed bridges.
5.2.2. Suspension system.

In suspension bridges, the suspension cable is its backbone. The cable carries most of the vertical
loads. The cable has four supports; two fixed anchored at ends of each cable and two are
longitudinal bearing on the top of pylons, figure (5.24). The bearing may be movable.
113
Figure (5. 24) suspension bridge.

The loads transferred from deck to the main cable through hangers then to pylon and supports.
The main cable carries axial tensile forces only. It has no bearing or torsional stiffness. The
anchorage support requires a massive mass block for supporting the main cable. The main cable
has a parabolic shape to optimize its weight.
Bridges are classified into single-span, two-spans, or three-span suspension bridges with two
towers, and Multi-span suspension bridges that have three or more towers, figure (1.14, 1.15).
Three-span suspension bridges are the most commonly used. In multi-span suspension bridges,
the horizontal displacement of the tower tops might increase due to the load conditions, and
countermeasures to control such displacement become necessary.
Suspension cables can be also classified in different categories like a number of spans its
supports, continuity of stiffening girders, types of suspenders, and types of cable anchoring.
5.2.3. Hybrid system.

Hybrid cable-stayed suspension bridge is a combination of cable-stayed and suspension systems.
This system was used in different bridges before the 1920's. Then this system was used in the
rehabilitations of some existing suspension bridges such as the Brooklyn Bridge, figure (1.6),
the Tancarville Bridge in France, and the Salazar Bridge in Portugal. Also, it was proposed in the
design of many strait-crossing bridges such as the Great Belt East Bridge, the Gibraltar Bridge,
the Messina Strait Bridge. Gemsing 1997, conceived this system, figure (5.25). The system has
the advantages of the two system; that helped engineer for proposing long span bridges.
Figure (5. 25) Hybrid bridge system
5.3. Bridge modeling.

For modeling such sophisticated structure, the challenge is how to simulate such structure using
appropriate member that represents the behavior of real member with sufficient accuracy
considering reasonable calculation cost (time and computers). The model type depends on the
114
required design stage; where different models may be used based on the level of required details.
For more design details and safety aspects, the full-scale model (Physical model) should be
prepared as discussed in section (2.3.2).
As mentioned in literature, for modeling the whole bridge, the frame element is an appropriate
element for modeling pylon and girder; where pylon and girder behave like a beam. However for
the more detailed design of the deck, the shell model will be appropriate as illustrated in section
(5.1). The cable also may be modeled as frame element with a very small bending inertia, and
idealized modulus of elasticity (Ernsts Modulus) as will be discussed in section (5.3.1). That
reduction in modulus of elasticity is to consider cable sag effects on cable stresses; in that
condition, the cable should be under sufficient tension under permanent loads; so that, any
compression takes place under live loads will consider as a reduction of the initial tension.
5.3.1. Modeling criteria.

The bridge was modeled as spine model, where this model was recommended in various
researches for its simplicity and good accuracy. The bridge was modeled as a frame element
using Sap 2000. Frame element was used for modeling beams, columns and truss elements in
three-dimensions. The element considers biaxial bending torsion and biaxial deformation. The
deck and pylon were modeled as general frame element
For the cable element, the bending and axial stiffness were reduced to be approximately zero for
representing the cable element. Also, cable axial stiffness changes non-linearly with cable
tension and cable sagging. Ernst (1956); Ren and Peng (2005) proposed an equation for
considering the reduction of the stiffness. The cable was modeled as a truss element having
equivalent cable stiffness; where the equivalent modulus of elasticity was calculated as in
equation (5.13) to account for the sag effect.
(
Equation (5. 13)
Where:
: is the cable material effective modulus;
: is the horizontal projected length of a cable;
is the weight per unit length of the cable;
is the cross-sectional area of the cable;
is the tension in the cables.
5.3.2. Suspension cable profile.

Suspension cable bridges are the longest span structures; the Akashi Kyoka Bridge central span
is 1881 m. The advantages of the light weight of cables and the statical system of suspension
bridge led to the increase of using those structures. However, suspension bridges have low
transversal stiffness; that due to the long span relatively to the deck dimensions and the absence
115
of intermediate supports, which may constrain lateral deformations. There are two ways of
increasing the lateral stiffness, the first one is modifying the deck shape and improving its
stiffness; the second is improving the statical system to increase its ability for resisting lateral
loads, this research will focus on the second one.
Suspension bridges are cable structures, which were widely used for several decades as its
construction speed and minimum use of materials, cables have only axial stiffness and carry only
tension force (Ahmadizadeh 2013). Cables are relatively lightweight structures that paid for its
use in large spans structures; moreover, cables have several advantages as high strength high
degrees of flexibility, and elastic behavior, the possibility of pre-tensioning and cost-effective
construction (Salehi Ahmad Abad et al. 2013). On the other hand, high geometric nonlinearity
has always been a potential threat to the stability of cable structures; that makes the analysis and
construction of cable-stayed systems are more challenging than most normal structures. Many
researchers paid attention to the analysis of cable structural systems(Salehi Ahmad Abad et al.
2013). Cable structures are dependent on applied loads, which cause large displacement and
rotation until reaching the equilibrium state. This research focused on cable suspension bridges.
In suspension bridges, hangers transfer loads from the deck to the main cable. The shape of the
main cable is the design key; the cable has a curved shape. For an approximation, the shape was
assumed to be a parabolic shape. Several methods discussed the analysis of suspension cables
analytically and numerically. However, those methods focused on the analysis of vertical
suspension cables and neglecting out-of- plane hangar inclination.
Hangers are commonly used as vertical hangers in traffic bridges. However, they can be used in
vertical or inclined in pedestrian bridges. The inclined hangers were commonly used in
pedestrian bridges as Harbor Drive at san-Diego, California, USA, Peace Bridge at Northern
Ireland and Gateshead Millennium Bridge at England. The inclined hangers act better than
vertical for dynamic and lateral loads, On the other hand, the excessive tensile strength leads to
fatigue failure that requires modification in their systems to achieve optimum system (Barghian
2011). The use of inclined hangers in traffic bridges is limited; the simple form of inclined
hangers in traffic bridges are the arch with inclined hangers as Network Arch Bridge.
Main cable curve profile is the analysis key for designing the suspension bridges;
The classical approach for cable analysis was deflection theory; while, as a result of the
development of finite element analysis (FEA), the profile finding method has mainly nonlinear
finite element method (Haixin HUANG et al. 2013). Several analysis approaches were developed
for numerical analysis as the parabola method, the segmental parabola method as well as the
segmental catenaries method.
J.Visontai (J.Visontai 1972), proposed an approximate analysis for suspension structures with
cable in inclined plane subjected to vertical and horizontal static loads. The proposed method
was valid for narrow suspension tube bridges under uniformly distributed static loads, and the
cable was subjected to horizontal wind load. This approximate method was based on energy
method and deflection theory. He studied vertically loaded suspension structures having inclined
cable plans with and without horizontal loads; the accuracy of the analysis was about 12%.
116
L.Greco et al., (Greco et al. 2014) proposed an approach to the static analysis of cable structures
using the form finding method; this approach carried on two steps form finding and structural
analysis. The approach was verified by numerical analysis based on the catenary element. It
relied on three-dimensional vector form solution of the catenary equation. Moreover, the
catenary element was an appropriate element for cable modeling different from the pseudo-linear
approach and modified modulus element (Ferri et al. 2006). The initial cable shape was
determined by form finding using Newton-Raphson method, and the initial stresses were
calculated by forced catenary method under self-weight and cable pre-stress. As the initial cable
shape was closer to the final shape, the iteration steps decrease; also, the iteration method affects
consumed time. Jakub et al. (Vasek & Sucharda 2013), studied calculating of parabolic catenary
using four iteration method; and compared the results of those methods. Those methods were
direct iteration, regular falsi, bisection and tangential methods. They used Mat lab software for
calculating the actual catenary length. A thirty-meter cable span was subjected to 0.8 Kn/m'
gravity directional load. They found that bisection method consumed the least time; the
tangential method used minimum iteration steps Newton method was an extensive iteration step
that calculates derivation on each point.
4.3.2.1. Suspension cable with vertical hangers
The main span was divided into two zones AC and BC, figure (4.23). For simplifying the
analysis, the following assumptions were considered. Figure (4.24) shows analysis algorithm and
flow chart
Y
VA
H
VB
H
2
3
4
5
C
a1
a1
a2
a3
a3
L/2
L/2
Figure (5. 26) suspension cable
117
Figure (5. 27) analysis diagram for determining cable profile and forces
Assumptions:
Inextensible and weightless cable;
The cable was divided into sub-elements as straight frames between two hangers, and the
distributed load was assumed to be like an equivalent concentrated load at each node;
The girder system was simply supported girder hanged with equally spaced hangers;
The analysis started with the global stability of the cable, then the internal stability at each node
of the cable as the following:
1. Calculate vertical and horizontal reactions at supports A, B and internal tension force (T) in
the cable;
2. Start from node no. 0 at support A the initial values of the sum of forces applied to the cable;
the equilibrium applied at each node based on the initial shape or the previous iteration and the
new coordinates calculated;
3. Move to the next node, a segment of cable added and the equilibrium applied for the node
(i+1) as in step 2;
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for all nodes along the cable till support B;
5. Recalculate the actual length of the cable and the applied loads and repeat steps 2, 3, 4 and 5
until convergence.
The first iteration:
(
)(
Equation (5. 14)
)(
Equation (5. 15)
Where
is cable own weight;
the cable, which equals
is girder own weight and q is the total uniform load acting on

Equation (5. 16)
Equation (5. 17)
118
Equation (5. 18)
Equation (5. 19)
Equation (2) can be easily written as following
Equation (5. 20)

Equation (5. 21)
)
(
(
)
Equation (5. 22)
)+
Equation (5. 23)
Equation (4) can be easily written as following

Equation (5. 24)
[
Equation (5. 25)
Sub equation 6 in equation (3)

[
Equation (5. 26)
Sub in Equation (1)

Equation (5. 27)
Equation (5. 28)

For determining cable profile, cable nodes coordinates can be calculated as follows:
At node i
(
)
Equation (5. 29)
(
)
Equation (5. 30)
Where
(
)]
Equation (5. 31)
can be determined for each

)
Equation (5. 32)
For the second iteration:

Recalculate loads using length calculated from iteration 1 and recalculate lengths, load and
reactions (
); and repeat the steps in the first iteration using the previous iteration
results.
In each step, the tension force in the cable for each segment calculated as following The tension
force in main cable was assumed to be constant ( ), figure (4.25).
119
Figure (5. 28) suspension cable internal forces

The tension force in suspension cable at node i
calculated as
Equation (5. 33)

and the horizontal force
According to the algorism above, the nodes along suspension cable are in equilibrium neglecting
the nonlinearities effects (as an assumption inextensible). So that, for correcting such
assumption, an iteration algorism for tuning bridge deck profile by modifying the tension force
in the suspension cable.
For symmetric suspension cable,
4.3.2.2. Suspension cable with inclined hangers.

The cable was assumed to be subjected to horizontal load with initial horizontal sag and a
vertical load with the initial vertical sag for determining the cable profile, an iteration method
was proposed as in vertical cable. This method had the same assumptions as in Vertical loaded
suspension cable section 4.3.2.1. This analysis used superposition method for determining the
cable profile; the cable was assumed to be unidirectional loading cable; which means that the
cable analyzed in horizontal and vertical axes separately, and the following process were
followed:
1. Assume the cable cross section based on approximate calculations;
2. Determining the initial cable profile for horizontal and vertical axes respectively;
3. Calculate the actual length of the cable, and calculate the inclination angle for each
hanger;
(
Equation (5. 34)
For each hanger, i, the inclination angle calculated by the following equation, and figure (4.26)
illustrate the angle.
Equation (5. 35)
120
zi
zi
xi
xi
Suspension cable
Deck
Hanger
Figure (5. 29) cable inclination angle

4. Re-calculate the cable profile coordinated considering own weight and length
modification of the cable;
5. Repeat steps 3 and four until the difference between node coordinates convergence
occurs.
|
|
Equation (5. 36)
|
|
Equation (5. 37)
The tension force in the main cable was calculated for each segment considering direction
superposition as the following equation
Equation (5. 38)
For small horizontal sag, the horizontal force in cable neglected; if it was calculated, it
would be very big which is illogical; it was assumed to be normal forces in the cable.
Three-dimensional suspension cable (in-extensible)
In pedestrian suspension bridges, the own weight of the cable is lower than
In suspension bridges (traffic uses), the main cable carries all vertical loads and the cable; the
own weight of the cable cannot be neglected; that made the analysis of the suspension cable is
more complicated.
For a single segment of the main cable (between two hangers), the equilibrium equations were
solved at each node of the hangers in three dimensions.
Equation (5. 39)

The own weight of the cable acting on negative Z axis direction; so that the cable was subjected
to uniform vertical load (own weight). If the cable was loaded distributed horizontally and
vertically, the equivalent loads have six components (three forces and three moments).For
simplifying calculating the equivalent loads, the loads transformed from global coordinates to the
cable local coordinates, figure (4.27)
121
Wx
Wz
Figure (5. 30) loads acting on cable in local coordinates

In cable suspension bridges, the suspension bridge is subjected to own weight, wind loads
(Uniformly distributed) and deck loads (point loads) at hanger locations. The wind load acting on
the cable was assumed to be neglected. The equivalent loads were point loads acting on nodes
and twist moment acting on nodes.
Equation (5. 40)
Equation (5. 41)
(
Equation (5. 42)
Where Fx and Fz are equivalent loads and M is the equivalent twist moment; for small , the
acting twist moment gets lower and may be neglected. Those forces will be in equilibrium with
hangers load. However, for large
the twisting moment caused local instability problem at
nodes due to the low torsional stiffness of the cable; that leads to cable rotation and horizontal
displacement corresponding. To overcome this displacement, transverse cables connect between
main suspension cables can be added; those transverse cables restrict the horizontal
displacement, and internal tension forces took place in those cables.
For verifying the procedure above, the following examples were studied; the proposed method
were used for estimating initial cable shape (profile) then an iteration process for tuning bridge
deck profile. Also, the effect of using inclined hangers and three-dimensional suspension cable
on the global stability of the bridge.
5.4. Parametric study.

Cable supporting system is one of the major parameters affects the stability of long-span bridges,
and the challenge is to optimize used cable quantity. Different cable systems were proposed as
discussed in section 5.2. Researchers discussed improving the cable supporting system using
inclined cables stay as in Sutong Bridge. However, the use of inclined cables is not common in
traffic bridges. In this thesis, the use of inclined hangers was studied, and the effect of its use on
the bridge stability was investigated.
In this thesis, there were two major axes for improving the stability of cable bridges; the first one
was improving suspension bridge with traditional spans; the second axis was developing ultralong span bridge with reasonable stability.
122
5.4.1. Suspension bridge

A suspension bridge with 2080 central span and 600 side spans was studied considering three
cases for main cable and hangers, a vertical suspension cable with vertical hangers; a vertical
suspension cable with inclined hangers; and a three-dimensional suspension cable and inclined
hangers. Table 1 summarized studied cases. A three-dimensional finite element models were
prepared using Sap2000 considering material non-linearity, figure (4.28, 4.29). The models for
the cable analysis are based on the following assumptions:
The strains are small, but displacements are large
Geometric nonlinearity
Table (5. 6) studied cables configurations
Description
Model
Main cable
Hangers
Inclined angle*
M1
Vertical
Vertical
NA
M2
Vertical
Inclined
10o
M3
Three- Dimensional Inclined
10o
*
The inclined angle represents the average of hanger inclined angles.
Figure (5. 31) studied suspension Cable Bridge
123
Figure (5. 32) Bridge Pylon

Critical wind speed was calculated depending on Slebrags equation (9), the following
(
Where:
)(
( ) )
is the critical wind speed;
Equation (5. 43)

is the first mode torsional frequency;
bending frequency; m is the mass per unit length, r is the radius of gyration
the bridge width and
is the air density at the bridge location.
124
is the first mode
and B is
5.4.2. Ultra-long span bridge

The longest suspension bridge is Akashi Kayoka Bridge with 1991 m central span. The designers
exert a great effort to developing long span bridges as proposed Messina Bridge with 3000 m
central span and Gibraltar Bridge with 5000 m central span.
Researchers who are working on the proposed Messina Bridge focused on improving bridge
deck cross-section for reducing acting aerodynamic forces. On the other hand, the researchers
working on the proposed Gibraltar Bridge focused on developing cable supporting systems,
figure (5.33, 5.34). This thesis focused on both axis deck shape and cable supporting system.
Chapter 3 discussed the deck shape modifications and this section discussed cable supporting
systems.
Figure (5. 33) proposed Gibraltar Bridge.
Figure (5. 34) Proposed Gibraltar Bridge.

5.2.2.1. Pylon.
As discussed in the section above, a small modification in suspension cable increased the critical
wind speed (section 5.4.1). Researchers discussed improving cable stay bridges using A-shape
pylon, figure (5.35).
125
Figure (5. 35) A-shape Pylon

In A shape pylon, stayed cables have a small inclined angle as in Sutong Bridge. This small
inclined angle increases lateral bridge stiffness and helps in increasing critical wind speed.
Figure (5. 36) A-shape Pylon

This research combined the two modification systems discussed before, as in Hybrid Bridge
supporting system discussed before (section 5.3.2.). The proposed bridge was a hybrid bridge
with three-dimensional suspension cable as described in the following section.
126
The Pylon was designed to fulfill A-shape pylon; also, the pylon carried a three-dimensional
suspension cable. The two supporting systems had different inclined angles. The stayed cables
were hanged at the centerline of the pylon and suspension cable was supported at the edge of the
pylon, figure (4.34).
Figure (5. 37) Proposed Pylon

The pylon was considered as a combination between Portal pylon for suspension bridges, figure
(4.28) and A-shape pylon for the cable-stayed bridge; also, inclined ribs were added for
connecting the two systems for increasing pylon stiffness. The pylon cross sections were
preliminary designed as steel pylon for own weight reduction; a hollow section was proposed;
that was the section proposed for Messina bridge; the hollow section was stiffened transversely,
figure (4.35). Stayed cables were hanged from the centerline of the pylon and the suspension
cables were supported on the top of the pylon, figure (4.36). The cross section edges were
smoother for decreasing aerodynamic forces acting on the pylon; also, the cross sections got
smaller as the height increased. The design considers the biaxial bending moment acting on the
pylon; wind forces acting
127
(a)
(b)
Figure (5. 38) Proposed pylon cross section a. Typical section; b. section with transverse
stiffener.
Figure (5. 39) Proposed Pylon

The pylon was modeled as two nodes frame element. The pylon was divided into sub-frames
based on the change of cross section; while each frame was assigned in SAP2000 as a general
section, figure (4.37).
Figure (5. 40) General section Data window.

128
The section properties were calculated using AutoCAD software. The actual cross section were
drawn and the real properties calculated using mass properties command.
5.2.2.2. Deck.
The proposed deck discussed in Chapter 3 was used in the analysis.
5.2.2.3. Cable supporting system
The proposed cable supporting system was a hybrid system, which is a combination of the cable
system and suspension bridge as discussed in section (4.2.3.) and the following more details
about chosen suspension and stayed cable systems will be discussed. Moreover, the load path
analysis for such three-dimensional cable system was a complicated problem; so, for simplicity,
the suspension cable was responsible for the carrying all vertical loads and stayed cables were
supposed to improve bridge lateral stiffness. Also, for the safety aspect, the stayed cables were
designed for carrying half of the vertical load for each loaded span; however, the initial strain for
stayed cables were almost zero. The following sections discussed proposed cable systems (stayed
cables and suspension)
5.2.2.3. Stayed cables.
In the proposed system, stayed cables carried about 500 m beside the pylon from the central
span, figure (5.41). Although, the main aim of adding stayed cables are improving lateral
stiffness.
Regarding the pylon configuration section 4.2.2.1, the stayed cables angles were varied from 4 to
5 degrees.
Figure (5. 41) proposed long span bridge
129
Figure (5. 42) proposed long span bridge

130
5.2.2.4. Three-dimensional suspension cable.

The suspension cable is the backbone of the bridge; it is the responsible for carrying all vertical
loads; also, the three-dimensional profile improves the horizontal stiffness of the bridge as
discussed in section (4.4.1). The cable profile was calculated as proposed in section (4.4.)
The following section discussed the proposed parametric study for the cable profile.
Vertical sag: the vertical sag was recommended to vary from
of the central
span;
Horizontal sag: the Horizontal sag was proposed to vary from 20 and 25 m;
Inclined hangers angle: the hangers inclination angle varied depending on the horizontal and
vertical sag for the main cable at the location of the hanger. The inclination angle was calculated
for the first hanger (near the pylon); and for ensuring that hangers inclination angles will not go
far from the average, the angle was assumed to be the same at mid-span, and then the horizontal
sag was calculated backward after calculating the horizontal component of the hanger. Also, the
proposed inclination angle was calculated modified till fulfill the required horizontal sag as
summarized in Table (5.4)
Table (5. 7) studied parameters.
Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hz. Sag
25
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
Vl. Sag
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
cable stay
NA
NA
NA
NA
Top
NA
NA
NA
NA
transverse
The Model 1 resist more wind speed than other models, so that, the model was studied under
static loads to check the bridge serviceability. The static analysis concern different wind speeds
varied from 15 to 40 m/sec. and the deformation was compared with Euro code and AASHTO
standard; while the allowable deformation is L/600 for traffic bridges; this ratio increased to
L/800 for train bridges. Chapter 6 will represent the results.
131
CHAPTER 6
Structural analysis results
6.1. Suspension bridges.
The following table discussed the natural frequencies torsional and bending- for the studied
models in section 4.4.1.; then critical wind speed was calculated using Slebrags equation as
discussed in chapter 4.
Table (6. 1) natural frequencies and critical wind speed
Frequencies
Critical wind
(m/Sec)
fb
ft
Model 1
0.13440
0.2096
67.82
Model 2
0.1526
0.2355
75.64
Model 3
0.2157
0.325
102.5
Table (6. 2) Models Major results
Vl. Disp. Hz.
Cable Cable axial Top Beam
Hanger
Midspan Disp.
force (ton)
Axial force(ton) force (Ton)
Mid span (m)
Model 1
-0.018
0.2
20353
116.89
296.88
Model 2
-0.015
1.9
20654
21.52
321
Model 3
-0.02
0.7
24070
30
297
The proposed methods were used, and it was found that the ratio between vertical displacements
at mid span to central span were about 0.03% for studied models. The cable displacement was
insignificant that may be a result for small horizontal sag assumed; on the other hand if the
horizontal sag increased, the torsional moment acting on the main cable increased; that leads to
main cable horizontal displacement. This displacement is significant; transverse cables linked the
suspension cable may be added to overcome this displacement. The pylon shape used in
suspension models improved lateral stiffnesses of the pylon
The axial force in the main cable for model 3 increased by 19%; while the axial forces for model
2 reduced by 1.5% relatively to model 1. In the model 3, the tension forces in the top pylon beam
decreased due to that horizontal force acting perpendicular to bridge longitudinal axis derived the
two main cables from getting closer. The bridge deck cross-section was subjected to tension
force perpendicular to longitudinal axis acting on the bridge deck cross-section due to the
horizontal component of the inclined hanger.
The critical wind speed increased by 11.55 % and 51 % than vertical suspension cable and
hangers for inclined hangers and three-dimensional cable with inclined hangers respectively
132
Figure (6. 1) Suspension bridge deformation
133
Figure (6. 2) Suspension bridge deformation
Figure (6. 3) Suspension model Normal force diagram
134
Figure (6. 4) Suspension model bending moment diagram
Figure (6. 5) Suspension model bending moment diagram for the bridge deck
135
Figure (6. 6) Suspension model Shear force diagram for the bridge deck
136
Figure (6. 7) Suspension model Shear force diagram for the bridge deck
137
Figure (6. 8) Suspension model bending moment diagram for the Pylon
138
Figure (6. 9) Suspension model Shear 3-3 force diagram for the Pylon
139
Figure (6. 10) Suspension model axial force diagram for the Pylon
140
Figure (6. 11) Suspension model 3 Bending mode shape fb 0.1544 Hz
141
Figure (6. 12) Suspension model 3 Symmetrical Torsion mode shape fb 0.23792 Hz
142
Figure (6. 13) Suspension model 3 Axi-Symmetrical Torsion mode shape fb 0.2442 Hz
143
6.2. Hybrid Cable Bridge

For developing long span bridge with a 3300-meter central span, the cable-stay suspension
system were proposed as discussed in Section 5.4.2 and summarized in the table (5.6).The
following section discussed the results.
The studied models can be divided into two groups based on horizontal sag value, and the
difference between models of groups was the existing of cable stay and /or top transverse
elements. The analysis concerned central span deformation under dead loads; the target was
minimized the deformation of the deck. Table (6.4) summarized the deck deformations for
studied models. Modeling target was minimizing the deck deformations under dead loads and
keeping the deck profile almost as proposed; this criteria leads to
Table (6. 3) Deck deformations
Deck Deformations
x
y
z
Model 1
0
0.013
0.033
Model 2
0
0.0002
0.022
Model 3
0
0.0122
0.0149
Model 4
0
0.006
-0.0517
Model 5
0
0.0121
0.007
Model 6
0
0.004
0.0141
Model 7
0
0.002
0.0543
Model 8
0
0.0007
0.0365
However, the main cable deformed under dead loads and not related to deck deformations as
shown in the table (6.5). The horizontal sway occurred due to the three-dimensional profile of
the cable and inclination on the hangers. The hanger inclination was assumed to be a constant; so
that it can be concluded that; as the main cable horizontal sag increased, the main cable
horizontal sway increased. For overcoming the horizontal sway, top transverse elements were
added as recommended from suspensions bridge models section 5.4.1. The top transverse cables
restricted the main cable horizontal sway and tension forces took place in those cables that varied
from 10 to 21 ton under dead loads only as shown in Model 1 and 5. Figures (6.14and 6.15)
shows main cable deformations.
As horizontal sag increase, the axial force in the suspension cable decreases; in the opposite, as
the horizontal sag increase, the tension force in the top beam increases.
144
Table (6. 4) Main cable deformations

Main cable Deformations (M)
x
y
z
Model 1 0.0102 0.0597 0.0213
Model 2 0.0127 0.0090 0.0132
Model 3 1.2153 0.0180 0.1641
Model 4
1.23
0.1810
0.126
Model 5 0.0019 0.0021 0.0203
Model 6 0.0069 0.0181 0.0092
Model 7 0.5632 0.0150 0.0534
Model 8 0.572 0.0000 0.0536
Table (6. 5) Main cable forces
Main Cable
Top Beam
Axial force
Axial force
(T)
(T)
Model 1
103145.8
10083.6
Model 2
102450
9822.6
Model 3
102979
10342
Model 4
102433.9
10075.63
Model 5
115243.8
8365
Model 6
113251.1
8186.34
Model 7
113245
8200
Model 8
113240
8292.6
145
120000
100000
80000
Main Cable Axial force (T)
60000
Top Beam Axial force (T)

40000
20000
0
Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Figure (6. 14) forces in main cable and tower top beam
146
(a)
(b)
Figure (6. 15) deformed shape under dead loads a. Model 1 and b. Model 2.
147
(a)
(b)
Figure (6. 16) deformed shape under dead loads a. Model 3 and b. Model 4.
148
Figure (6. 17) Hybrid Bridge bending moment M2-2
149
Figure (6. 18) Hybrid Bridge bending moment M3-3
150
Figure (6. 19) Hybrid Bridge Axial force for the Pylon
151
Figure (6. 20) Hybrid Bridge Axial force for the main cable
152
Figure (6. 21) Hybrid Bridge bending-deformed shape
153
Figure (6. 22) Hybrid Bridge bending mode shape
154
Figure (6. 23) Hybrid Bridge Torsion mode shape
155
Figure (6. 24) Hybrid Bridge Torsion mode shape
156
For determining an approximate value for the critical wind speed, selbrages equation
was used as discussed in section (2.2.4.). The pure bending mode shape occurred, and
it was easy for visualization as shown in figure (6.21). However, the pure torsion
mode shape did not happen; and the first combined torsion and sway mode shape was
used for determining critical wind speed as shown in figure (6.22 and 6.23). Table
(6.6) summarizes studied models natural frequencies and the calculated critical wind
speed using Selbrages equation. The disappearance of pure tension may be due to
that the deck was under tension along the transverse direction of the bridge; those
tension forces may restrict pure torsion and led to a combination of torsion and sway.
Table (6. 6)) natural frequency (Hz) and critical wind speed (m/sec).
Mode
Mode
Critical wind speed
Ratio
Ft (Hz)
Fb (Hz)
No.
No.
(m/sec)
(Ft/Fb)
M1
106
0.28855
104
0.19074
1.512792
87.61
M2
105
0.25400
104
0.18724
1.356548
69.45
M3
202
0.26750
201
0.19714
1.356904
73.17
M4
202
0.27231
201
0.19403
1.403443
77.31
M5
103
0.27624
102
0.19534
1.41415
79.04
M6
103
0.26665
102
0.19529
1.365405
73.47
M7
202
0.26654
201
0.19814
1.34521
72.14
M8
202
0.26688
201
0.19617
1.360453
73.22
The critical wind speed for models 1 to 4 were greater than their isotopes models 5 to
8; that was a result of the increase in horizontal sag; As the horizontal sag increases,
the critical wind speed increases. In the opposite, the axial force in the main cable
increased as the horizontal sag decreased; the axial force increased by 10%. The axial
force in the pylon top beam decreased by 17% approximately, when the horizontal sag
decreased from 25 to 20 meters.
For serviceability assurance, the model M1 was studied under working loads (Dead
loads and wind loads) considering different wind speed at constant wind direction
angle 0 degree. Figure (6.25and 6.26) shows the vertical and horizontal displacement
respectively. Codes do not specify a specific limitation for long span bridges; they
only recommend L/600 for vertical deformations for traffic bridges and L/800 for
vertical deformation for train bridges. For the case studied this value will be as
follows:
Wind speed 15 m/Sec

Wind speed 35 m/Sec
Wind speed 21 m/Sec

Wind speed 40 m/Sec
Wind speed 30 m/Sec
Vertical dispacement (m)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure (6. 25) Vertical displacement for different wind speed
Horizontal dispacement (m)
Wind speed 21 m/Sec

Wind speed 40 m/Sec
Wind speed 30 m/Sec

Wind speed 15 m/Sec
Wind speed 35 m/Sec
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Figure (6. 26) Horizontal displacement for different wind speed

For ensuring that those values are accepted for such long span, an extensive research
for measured data was carried. The available data was for Tsing Ma Bridge, a
suspension bridge with 1377 m central span. The measured data was for 5 to 15 m/sec
wind speed and the expected deformations were calculated using Finite Element
model. Figure (6.27)
Lateral Displacement
vertical Displacement
Figure (6. 27) Vertical and Horizontal displacement for Tsing Ma Bridge.
CHAPTER 7
Summary and Conclusions
7.1. Summary
This research studied the aerodynamic stability of cable-stayed suspension bridges.
The research has two major axes aerodynamic and stability analysis.
The aerodynamic analysis (Axis) focused on developing a smooth deck shape that
generates low aerodynamic forces. Six deck shapes were proposed and studied using
CFD techniques, a numerical method that was verified and recommended in the
literature; three deck shape have an elliptical shape, and three has the traditional box
girder. This research has firstly introduced elliptical deck shape. The idea of this
shape was to use an aerodynamic shape (Deck shape 1), already used as a wing; the
proposed elliptical shape was modified to fulfill traffic requirements three lanes per
each direction with two train way. The elliptical shape was modified for reducing
aerodynamic forces by adding two slots; the slot width was varied from 2 to 3
meters(Deck shape 2 and 3). The traditional box section deck shape was modified by
increasing width to depth ratio (Deck shape 4 and 5). Also, slots were added for
reducing aerodynamic forces (Deck shape 6). The results of the studied deck shapes
were compared to realistic wind tunnel analysis for Sutong Bridge, and it was found
that the elliptical shape generated low aerodynamic forces. Then, aerodynamic flutter
analysis was performed for calculating flutter derivatives based on Scanlans theory
as verified in the literature. Those flutter derivatives will be used for calculating
critical wind speed for proposed statical systems.
Structural Analysis (axis) was to improve the stability of cable supporting system. A
combination of three-dimensional suspension cable and cable-stay systems studied.
Catenary theory was improved for determining three-dimensional suspension cable
profile. Three models suspension bridge and eight models cable-stayed suspension
cable were studied. The use of three-dimensional suspension cable improved critical
wind speed. In addition, the analysis worked for devolving elliptical bridge deck
shape by combining truss and box girder systems; that development improved girder
torsional and bending stiffnesss
7.2. Conclusions
The thesis had two major axes aerodynamic and structural analysis of long span
bridge as discussed before.
From aerodynamic aspects:
The elliptical deck shape was a smooth shape; that generated lower
aerodynamic forces than traditional bridge box girder.
Adding slots to the closed elliptical shape increased aerodynamic forces little
bit; however, slots made aerodynamic forces almost constant for different
wind directions.
Adding slots decreased generated moment and lift forces. However, drag
forces increased.
Slot edges may be sharp comparing to leading or trailing edges of the deck.
As slot width increases, the generated aerodynamic forces increase.
As deck shape edges get smoother, the aerodynamic forces decrease.
For deck design analysis:
The truss-box sections combined system improved deck properties and
increased torsion stiffness of the bridge deck.
Truss elements optimization help in reducing deck own weight.
The type of truss joints affects elements cross section that has a direct effect
on deck own weight.
For overall structural stability:
The use of three-dimensional cable improved the overall stability of the
bridge.
The proposed criteria for determining three-dimensional cable profile using
superposition of catenary method was efficient for weightless cable
Moreover for considering the cable own weight, the proposed method gave an
approximate initial location for the cable profile, and then an iteration method
was used for tuning the deck profile by modifying the initial tension force in
the suspension cable.
Three-dimensional cable restricted the pure torsional mode shape; that may be
due to the tension forces in the deck section perpendicular to longitudinal axis
under dead loads.
The used of three-dimensional cable made the torsional mode away from the
bending mode shape.
In the case of using three-dimensional cable, adding top transverse elements
connected the two primary suspension cables was recommended for restricting
main cable sway.
The use of a three-dimensional cable with top transverse elements connect
main cables improved the bridge stability and made the torsional mode away
from the bending mode.
As horizontal sag increased, the critical wind speed increases; and the axial
tension force in the main cable decreases.
7.3. Future work

This thesis pursues the following topics:
Study smooth deck shapes as elliptical deck shape for reducing aerodynamic
forces acting on bridges
Modify wind slots in elliptical deck shape for lift and moment forces acting
on the bridge deck.
Conduct optimization for elliptical deck design to reduce the own weight of
the bridge.
Flutter detailed analysis for the proposed cable support system.
References
Allan. Larsen, Jens H. Walther. 1998. Discrete Vortex Simulation of Flow around
Five Generic Bridge Deck Sections. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 77-78: 591602.
Bartoli, Gianni et al. 2008. Innovative Solutions for Long-Span Suspension
Bridges. Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics and Applications: 14.
Dabo. Xin, Jinping. Ou, Hui. Li. 2010. Flutter Stability Analysis of Long-Span
Bridge Based on Numerical Calculation Applying Dynamic Mesh Technique. Civil
Engineering.
Engineering, Structural et al. 2007. Flutter Analysis of Long-Span Bridges Using
ANSYS. 10(1): 6182.
http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=General
Search&qid=2&SID=T2p8khc45oBFPFjMlJg&page=26&doc=251&cacheurlFromRi
ghtClick=no.
Flix Nieto, Alberto Zasso, Daniele Rocchi, and Santiago, and Hernndez. 2008. Cfd
Verification of Aerodynamic Devices Performance. In Milano, Italy: BBAA VI
International Colloquium on: Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics & Applications, 2024.
Gianni Bartoli, Piero DAsdia, Sofia Febo, Claudio Mannini, Stefano Past, Lorenzo
Procino. 2008. Innovative Solutions for Long-Span Suspension Bridges. Bluff
Bodies Aerodynamics and Applications: 14.
H.Ostenfeld, Klaus, and Allan Larsen. 1992. Bridge Enginering and Aerodynamic.
In Aerodynamics of Large Bridges, , 322.
Huang, Lin, and Haili Liao. 2011. Identification of Flutter Derivatives of Bridge
Deck under Multi-Frequency Vibration. Engineering Applications of Computational
Fluid Mechanics 5(1): 1625.
Huang, Lin, Haili Liao, Bin Wang, and Yongle Li. 2009. Numerical Simulation for
Aerodynamic Derivatives of Bridge Deck. Simulation Modelling Practice and
Theory 17(4): 71929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2008.12.004.
Jos . Jurado, Santiago Hernndez, Flix Nieto, and Manuel A. Mosquera. 2011.
Bridge Aeroelasticity. Sensitivity Analysis and Optimal Design.
M Keerthana, K P Jaya, S Selvi Rajan, Thampi Hephzibah , R Ravi Sankar. 2011.
Numerical Studies on Evaluation of Aerodynamic Force Coefficients of CableStayed Bridge Deck. 8(2): 1929.
Kuroda, Shinichi. 1997. Numerical Simulation of Flow around a Box Girder of a
Long-Span Suspension Bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 67-68: 23952.
Lin. Huang, Haili.Liao. 2011. Identification of Flutter Derivatives of Bridge Deck

under Multi-Frequency Vibration. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid
Mechanics 5(1): 1625.
Robert H Scanlan. 1996. Aerodynamics of Cable-Supported Bridges. Construct.
Steel Res. 39(1): 5168.
M. Ahmadizadeh, Three-dimensional geometrically nonlinear analysis of slack cable
structures, Comput. Struct., vol. 128, no. July, pp. 160169, 2013.
M. Salehi Ahmad Abad, A. Shooshtari, V. Esmaeili, and A. Naghavi Riabi,
Nonlinear analysis of cable structures under general loadings, Finite Elem. Anal.
Des., vol. 73, pp. 1119, 2013.
M. Barghian, Proposing a New Model of Hangers in Pedestrian Suspension Bridges
to Solve Hangers Slackness Problem, Engineering, vol. 03, no. 04, pp. 322330,
2011.
Haixin HUANG, Bo LIU, Ying ZHANG, and Yonggang TAN, Improved
Calculation Method of Main Cable Curve of Suspension Bridge With Inclined
Hangers, ASCE, pp. 18, 2013.
J.Visontai, Approximate analysis of suspension bridges with cables in inclined
planes, Period. Polytech., vol. 17, no. 12, 1973.
L. Greco, N. Impollonia, M. Cuomo, L. Greco, N. Impollonia, and M. Cuomo, A
procedure for the static analysis of cable structures following elastic catenary
theory,International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 51 7-8, 2014.
A. V. L. A.M.S. Freire, J.H.O. Negro, Geometrical nonlinearities on the static
analysis of highly flexible steel cable-stayed bridges, Comput. Struct, vol. 84, no.
3132, pp. 21282140, 2006.
J. Vasek and O. Sucharda, Numerical Analysing the Parabolic
Catenary,International journal of mathmatical models and methods in applied
sciecnce, vol.8 pp. 280286, 2013.
J. B. Frandsen, Numerical bridge deck studies using finite elements. Part I: Flutter,
J. Fluids Struct., vol. 19, pp. 171191, 2004.

0333 0033 0333
.

( )402
( )6 0

1

2

.
6 (0
3
0 )
(
).
4

5

.

6
.
7
-
-
2016
-
-
2016
:
/ -
-
/ -
-
/ -
-
/ -
-
/ -
-
-
-
2016

Aerodynamic Stability of Ultra-Long Span Cable-Suspension Bridges

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

Aerodynamic Stability of Ultra-Long Span Cable-Suspension Bridges

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aerodynamic Stability of Ultra-Long Span Cable-Suspension

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University in Partial

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY