Entdecken Sie eBooks

Kategorien

Entdecken Sie Hörbücher

Kategorien

Entdecken Sie Zeitschriften

Kategorien

Entdecken Sie Dokumente

Kategorien

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

4 Ansichten203 SeitenDiplomarbeit_Mueller_Haagen - Cable Stay Bridge (Mr Binh)

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

4 Ansichten203 SeitenDiplomarbeit_Mueller_Haagen - Cable Stay Bridge (Mr Binh)

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 203

Berechnungsstrategien

zur sicheren und formtreuen

Errichtung von Schrägseilbrücken

In englischer Sprache

Diplomarbeit

zur Erlangung des Grades einer Diplom-Ingenieurin

der Fachrichtung Bauingenieurwesen und Umwelttechnik

von

Svenja Mueller-Haagen

Matrikel-Nr. 14104

TUHH, AB 3-08, D-21071 Hamburg Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Uwe Starossek

Arbeitsbereich 3-08

Baustatik und Stahlbau

Sta, Löh 02. März 2005

Berechnungsstrategien zur sicheren und formtreuen Errichtung

von Schrägseilbrücken

Schrägseilbrücken gelten für Spannweiten von 100m bis 1000m als eine wirtschaftliche

und ästhetische Brückenform. Sie weisen eine komplexe und hochgradig statisch unbe-

stimmte Tragstruktur auf, bei deren Entwurf und Bemessung insbesondere die auftreten-

den Bauzustände zu beachten sind. Die Abmessungen und die verwendeten Materialien

des Tragwerks können eine Berücksichtigung geometrischer und physikalischer Nichtli-

nearitäten erforderlich machen.

Aufgrund dieser Komplexität sind beim Bau der Brücke Abweichungen gegenüber der

Berechnung zu erwarten. Abweichungen außerhalb von Toleranzgrenzen führen zu er-

heblichen Änderungen der Geometrie und Schnittgrößen, die nachfolgend zu korrigieren

sind.

Im Rahmen dieser Arbeit soll an einem einfachen Beispiel die oben angedeutete Problem-

stellung bei der Berechnung von Schrägseilbrücken untersucht werden. Details werden

nach Absprache mit den Betreuern festgelegt.

Aufgabenstellung

rer Berücksichtigung der Optimierung der Spannstrategie und des zeitabhängigen

Materialverhaltens

• Berechnungen und Vergleich der Ergebnisse für ein sinnvoll gewähltes System unter

Anwendung verschiedener Programme

chungen während des Bauablaufs und Anwendung auf das oben gewählte System

Betreuer:

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Uwe Starossek

Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Löhning

TUHH, AB 3-08 (+49-40) 428 78-3223 sekretariat bs@tuhh.de

D-21071 Hamburg

Denickestraße 17 (+49-40) 428 78-2585 www.sh.tu-harburg.de

D-21073 Hamburg

Erklärung

Ich versichere, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die

angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Die Arbeit hat in gleicher oder ähnlicher

Form noch keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegen. Ich stimme der Weitergabe meiner

Arbeit zu wissenschaftlichen Zwecken zu.

Svenja Mueller-Haagen

Abstract

Due to their aesthetic appearance and structural efficiency, cable-stayed bridges are increasingly

designed in recent decades. They are usually an economical choice for spans between 200m

and about 1000m. Being mostly built by the cantilevering method, cable-stayed bridges have

to be analyzed separately in every construction stage, taking into account many load cases. In

addition, the forces in the cable stays have to be determined and possibly changed during con-

struction so as to obtain the desired deck and pylon condition at the time of bridge completion.

The determination of the initial cable forces for a given final dead load condition is an important

but difficult task in the design of cable-stayed bridges. Not only the construction sequence has

to be taken into account, but also time-dependent effects, such as creep and shrinkage play an

important role in the structural behavior of cable-stayed bridges. Moreover, in case of longer

spans, nonlinear effects can no longer be neglected and should be included in the analysis.

A second major issue during the construction of cable-stayed bridges is the continuous control

of geometry and internal forces. Due to inevitable errors between the structural design parame-

ters and the actual ones, unexpected discrepancies between the predicted and the actual state of

the structure in a given construction stage may occur. These discrepancies need to be monitored

and adjusted so as to achieve the desired final condition.

The present work concerns the analysis and control of cable-stayed bridges during construc-

tion by the cantilevering method. A procedure to determine an optimum tensioning strategy

is presented that allows for the consideration of several effects that are relevant for the design

of cable-stayed bridges, including the construction sequence, second-order theory, large dis-

placements, cable sag and time-dependent effects such as creep and shrinkage. Furthermore, an

economically efficient technique to control discrepancies between the predicted and actual state

of a cable-stayed bridge by the adjustment of cable tension forces and deck elevations during

the erection process is formulated. Both methods are demonstrated in a sample calculation of

a simple cable-stayed bridge, which is performed by the dint of standard structural engineering

software programs developed for the analysis and design of bridge structures. The results of

this sample calculation show that both methods may well be used to ensure safety and geometry

accuracy during the erection of cable-stayed bridges.

Contents

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Cable-Stayed Bridges 6

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 Review of existing methods to determine the initial cable forces in cable-stayed

bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CONTENTS II

fects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3.4.2 Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.3.5 Implementation of the expanded unit load method into finite element

software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4.2.1 Larsa2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

CONTENTS III

4.2.2 MIDAS/Civil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4.3.1.1 Larsa2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.3.1.2 MIDAS/Civil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

MIDAS/Civil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

CONTENTS IV

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.2 Causes of discrepancies between the predicted and actual state of a cable-stayed

bridge during construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.4.3 Comparison of the theoretical and actual results and forecast of the fu-

ture evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

5.4.4 Adjustment of deck elevations and cable forces during construction . . 101

5.4.4.1 Procedure for optimum cable force and deck elevation adjust-

ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

6.3 Restrictions for the solution for unknown load factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

6.4 Calculation of the initial cable forces in a linear static analysis . . . . . . . . . 111

6.4.3 Summary of the determination of the initial cable forces in a linear static

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

6.5 Calculation of the initial cable forces and the jacking distance in a construction

stage analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

6.5.1 Calculation of the cable forces at the time of installation and the jacking

distance in a time-independent construction stage analysis . . . . . . . 122

CONTENTS V

distance in a time-independent construction stage analysis . . 130

6.5.2 Calculation of the cable forces at the time of installation and the jacking

distance in a time-dependent construction stage analysis . . . . . . . . 131

distance in a time-dependent construction stage analysis . . . 144

6.5.3 Summary of the calculation of the initial cable forces and jacking dis-

tance in a construction stage analyis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

List of Figures

3.7 Definition of the tangent and secant modulus of elasticity of a cable [15] . . . . 32

4.2 Flowchart for the calculation of initial cable forces in a linear analysis . . . . . 80

4.3 Flowchart for the calculation of initial cable forces in a construction stage analysis 81

4.4 Construction sequence of the verification model for creep and shrinkage . . . . 83

LIST OF FIGURES VII

6.3 Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit cable forces [kNm] . . . 111

6.4 Vertical deformation under dead load and unit cable forces [mm] . . . . . . . . 111

6.5 Moment distribution when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I . . . . . 112

6.6 Vertical deflection when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I . . . . . . . 112

6.9 Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit cable forces [kNm] . . . 114

6.10 Vertical deformation under dead load and unit cable forces [mm] . . . . . . . . 114

6.11 Moment distribution when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I . . . . . 116

6.12 Vertical deflection when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I . . . . . . . 117

6.19 Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces [kNm], CS14 . . 122

6.20 Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces [mm], CS14 . . . . . . . 123

6.21 Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I 123

6.22 Vertical deflection in CS14 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I . . 124

6.23 Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II . . 124

6.24 Vertical deflection in CS14 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II . . . . 125

6.25 Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces [kNm], CS14 . . 125

LIST OF FIGURES VIII

6.26 Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces [mm], CS14 . . . . . . . 126

6.27 Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I 128

6.28 Vertical deflection in CS14 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I . . 129

6.29 Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II . . 129

6.30 Vertical deformation in CS14 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II . . . 129

6.31 Vertical deformation in CS14 when the initial tangent displacement for erected

structures option is not activated [mm], Case II (MIDAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

6.32 Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [kNm] . 132

6.33 Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [mm] . . . . . . 132

6.34 Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I 134

6.35 Vertical deflection at day 89 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I . 135

6.36 Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II . . 135

6.37 Vertical deformation at day 89 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II . . 135

6.38 Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case I . 136

6.39 Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case I . 136

6.40 Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case II . 137

6.41 Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II 137

6.42 Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [kNm] . 138

6.43 Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [mm] . . . . . . 138

6.44 Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I 141

6.45 Vertical deflection at day 89 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I . 141

6.46 Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II . . 141

6.47 Vertical deformation at day 89 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II . . 142

6.48 Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case I . 142

6.49 Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case I . 143

6.50 Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case II . 143

6.51 Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II 143

6.52 Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II 145

6.53 Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II 146

LIST OF FIGURES IX

6.54 Final bending moment distribution along the bridge girder, Case I (MIDAS/Civil)147

6.55 Final vertical deformations of the bridge girder, Case I (MIDAS/Civil) . . . . . 147

6.56 Bending moment distribution along the bridge girder at day 89, Case I (Larsa2000)148

6.57 Vertical displacements of the bridge girder at day 89, Case I (Larsa2000) . . . . 148

6.59 Forecast of the final bending moment distribution after adjustment in CS02 . . 157

6.60 Forecast of the final vertical deflection after adjustment in CS02 . . . . . . . . 158

6.62 Forecast of the final bending moment distribution after adjustment in CS03 . . 162

6.63 Forecast of the final vertical deflection after adjustment in CS03 . . . . . . . . 162

6.68 Final bending moment distribution of the real structure after adjustment . . . . 170

6.69 Final vertical displacements of the real structure after adjustment . . . . . . . . 170

6.71 Vertical displacements after adjustment including precamber at day 6000 . . . . 171

List of Tables

4.1 Material data for the verification model for creep and shrinkage . . . . . . . . . 84

4.2 Section data for the verification model for creep and shrinkage . . . . . . . . . 84

4.7 Total elastic deformation of joint 2 and initial elastic deformation of joint 3 . . 87

LIST OF TABLES XI

6.5 Ideal cable forces for restricted bending moments, Case I . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

6.8 Ideal cable forces at time of installation and ideal support jacking for restricted

bending moments, Case I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

6.9 Ideal cable forces at time of installation and ideal support jacking for restricted

deformations, Case II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

6.10 Comparison of the ideal cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support

jacking determined by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

6.11 Comparison of the ideal cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support

jacking determined in a time-dependent analysis by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 144

6.12 Comparison of the cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support

jacking determined in a time-independent and time-dependent analysis by MI-

DAS/Civil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

6.13 Comparison of the cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support jack-

ing determined in a time-independent and time-dependent analysis by Larsa2000 147

6.14 Cable forces and jacking distance applied in the construction stage analysis . . 149

6.17 Error factors considered in the simulation of the actual erection process . . . . 152

6.18 Comparison of theoretical and actual deformations in CS01 and CS02 . . . . . 153

6.19 Changes of input data of the theoretical analysis model after error identification

in CS01 and CS02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

6.20 Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS01 and CS02 157

6.22 Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS03 . . . . . 161

6.23 Comparison of theoretical and actual deformations in CS04 and CS05 . . . . . 163

6.25 Changes of input data of the theoretical analysis model after error identification

in CS04 and CS05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6.26 Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS05 . . . . . 166

LIST OF TABLES XII

6.29 Changes of input data of the theoretical analysis model after error identification

in CS09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6.30 Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS09 . . . . . 168

6.31 Comparison of the cable forces in the original analysis and the actual erection . 172

6.32 Input data of the real structure and the theoretical analysis model . . . . . . . . 173

List of Symbols

Matrices and Vectors:

A Influence matrix

Adispl Displacement influence matrix

Aerr Error influence matrix

Amoment Bending moment influence matrix

B Vector of strain-displacement-relationships

D Elastic stiffness matrix

D Vector of actual errors

Df inal Vector of discrepancies between the desired condition and actual final state

E Vector of errors

F Incremental flexibility matrix

K Stiffness matrix

Kt Tangent stiffness matrix

K e

Stiffness matrix of element e

M 0

Vector of target bending moments

M d

Vector of dead load bending moments

M n

Vector of updated deck bending moment in step n

P Load Vector

T Vector of stay cable forces

T n

Vector of updated stay cable forces in step n

∆T Vector of cable force adjustments

∆T n

Vector of cable force adjustments in step n

W Weight matrix

X Vector of multiplication factors

Z Vector of bending moments or displacements of the ideal state

a Vector of nodal displacements

a e

Vector of nodal displacements of element e

f Vector of external loads

f e

Vector of nodal element forces due to creep and shrinkage

q e

Vector of nodal forces due to element e

Ω Vector of square errors

Ψ Sum of internal and external generalized forces

LIST OF SYMBOLS XIV

Scalars:

A Cross-section

Ac Concrete cross-section

C Product specific constant

E Modulus of elasticity

Eci Modulus of elasticity at the age of 28 days

Eeq Equivalent modulus of elasticity

ER Relaxation function

Eµ0 Coefficient related to the initial shapes of specific creep curves at the loading

application time

I Moment of inertia

J Creep compliance function

L Length

Lx Length in x direction

Ly Length in y direction

Lu Unstressed length of a cable

M Bending moment

MPK Bending moment due to permanent load in point K

MTKm Bending moment due to the action Tm in point K

Pn Force number n

RH Relative humidity

T Tension force of a cable

Vx Horizontal deformation

Vy Vertical deformation

Xn Multiplication factor n

fck Charcteristic compressive strength of concrete

fcm Mean compressive strength of concrete at age of 28 days

fpy Yield stress of steel

h Notional size

m Number

n Number

s Coefficient that depends on the type of cement

t Age, time

t0 Age of concrete at the beginning of loading

ts Age of concrete at the beginning of shrinkage

u Perimeter

LIST OF SYMBOLS XV

w Weight

Γµ Retardation time

∆0 Correction factor

Ψ Curvature

α Power

βc Coefficient to describe the development of creep with time after loading

βcs Coefficient that depends on the type of cement

βs Function of time which depends upon the size and shape of an element

δc Creep deformation

δel Elastic deformation

Strain

0 Initial strain

0 Stress independent elastic strain

a Aging strain

c Concrete strain

cσ Total stress dependent strain

cc Creep strain

cs Total shrinkage strain

cs0 Notional shrinkage coefficient

el Elastic strain

sh Shrinkage strain

sh,0 Total shrinkage strain that occurs after concrete hardening

T h Thermal dilatation

θc Creep rotation

θel Elastic rotation

σ Stress

σ0 Initial stress

σc Concrete stress

σp0 Initial stress

σpr Stress after loading for a period of time

τ Time of loading

φ Creep coefficient

φ0 Notional creep coefficient

ϕz Rotaion

Chapter 1

1.1 Introduction

The cable-stayed bridge is a modern form of bridge which is both economical and aesthetic. It

has been extensively employed in the construction of long-span bridges in the past few decades.

Bridges of this type are now entering a new era with main span lengths reaching 1000m. How-

ever, cable-stayed bridges with multiple stays are highly statically indeterminate structures that

require a computationally intensive design.

For cable-stayed bridges the trend today is to use more slender stiffening girders combined with

increasing span lengths which makes it imperative that the internal forces in the bridge girder

remain within tight limits throughout the construction process. Moreover, for the complete

structure, it is generally aspired to minimize the deformations and internal forces in the bridge

deck and tower. This desired optimum final condition mainly relies on the balancing of loads by

the post-tensioning forces of the stay cables. Due to the high flexibility of cable-stayed bridges,

slight changes in the cable forces may already have a significant influence on the geometry and

the internal forces of the girder and the pylon. Theoretically it is possible to calculate a set of

initial cable forces that exactly cause the desired ”ideal state” in the complete structure. How-

ever, the member forces and deformations at the time of completion of the bridge are generated

during the construction and are dependent on the specifics of the sequence of construction.

Cable-stayed bridges can be built using different erection techniques, but the cantilevering

method is certainly the most efficient construction method for this type of bridges. Especially

long-span cable-stayed bridges are generally erected using this method. During the construc-

tion by cantilever method new girders are installed and then supported by new cables in each

erection stage. In order to balance the weight of the bridge deck, the stays are stressed at the

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 2

time of their erection. These initial cable forces at the time of installation drastically change

during the erection process and adjustments may be necessary to achieve the desired final con-

dition. However, adjusting the tension force in the stay cables is expensive and thus, tensioning

strategies must be optimized to achieve an economic design.

In case of concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges, the change of the member forces and de-

formations during the erection process is significantly influenced by time-dependent processes,

such as creep and shrinkage. Furthermore, due to the high redundancy of cable-stayed bridges,

the dead load bending moments and cable forces achieved in the final construction stage will

still redistribute due to time-dependent deformations after continuity of the structure is reached.

Therefore, the consideration of time effects on materials is unavoidable for designing concrete

or composite structures.

In addition to time effects on materials, also nonlinear effects influence the structural behavior

of cable-stayed bridges. Generally, high tensile forces exist in the cable stays which induce high

compression forces in the towers and the girders that increase as the main span length increases.

These high normal forces cause a risk to the stability of these components and thus, especially

for long-span cable-stayed bridges, second-order theory and large displacement effects should

be taken into account in the structural analysis. Moreover, the nonlinear behavior of the cable

system as a result of the changes in sag and corresponding axial tension may significantly influ-

ence the optimum initial cable tension forces.

Another problem during the erection of cable-stayed bridges by the cantilevering method is that

even if appropriate initial cable forces have been determined, they may not necessarily cause

the desired final condition. Due to inevitable errors between the structural design parameters

and the actual ones, unexpected discrepancies between the predicted and the actual state of

the structure in a given construction stage may occur. In order to avoid the accumulation of

these discrepancies and to ensure a safe erection process, it is necessary to carry out a detailed

simulation analysis and a continuous monitoring throughout the erection process. This way

the discrepancies can be detected and the erection can be controlled by certain construction

adjustments.

The present thesis concerns the analysis and control of cable-stayed bridges during construction

by the cantilevering method. The first main objective is the calculation of suitable stay cable

forces so that the stresses in the stays and the structure remain allowable during the construction

process and a desired final condition is achieved at the time of completion of the structure.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 3

In literature, there exists a great variety of approaches to determine optimum stay cable forces,

but most of them are based on the configuration in the final structure and do not take into ac-

count the actual construction process. Furthermore, time effects on materials and nonlinear

behavior are rarely considered. The method presented in this thesis allows the definition of a

desired bending moment distribution and/or a desired geometry in the final structure under dead

load and then computes the tensioning strategy that will exactly achieve the desired condition

taking into account the changes of the structural system during the construction process and

time-dependent effects such as creep and shrinkage. The nonlinear behavior of cable-stayed

bridges may also be considered, but is neglected when adopting the method in the determina-

tion of the optimum tension forces in an example calculation. In this regard it is shown that

in case of small cable-stayed bridges nonlinear effects have minor influence on the structural

behavior.

Because the main concern of this thesis is to achieve an economic design, no provision is made

for expensive cable force adjustments during the erection process. The goal is to determine the

initial cable forces that need to be applied at the time of their installation to achieve a desired

final dead load condition at the time of completion of a structure without restressing any of the

stay cables.

The second major objective of this study is the development and demonstration of a method to

control unexpected discrepancies between the theoretical predictions and the actual structural

responses of a cable-stayed bridge. As before the main concern lies in the economic efficiency

of cable-stayed bridges and thus, the method that is mainly presented in this thesis does not im-

ply the retensioning of already installed cables. The goal is to adjust the cable forces and deck

elevations of the remaining cables and girder segments to achieve the desired final condition

within reasonable tolerance.

Both the determination of the initial cable forces and the control of the geometry during con-

struction are shown on the basis of an example calculation of a simple model of a cable-stayed

bridge. This calculation is performed by the dint of two standard structural analysis programs,

namely Larsa2000/4th Dimension and MIDAS/Civil. Both programs have a particular emphasis

on bridge structures, but they cannot automatically determine the post-tensioning forces needed

in the cable stays.

From the analysis of the example cable-stayed bridge by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil a sec-

ondary objective of the present thesis arises that includes the comparison of the functionality of

these structural engineering software programs with respect to the structural analysis of cable-

stayed bridges.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 4

Chapter 2 introduces the reader to the general background of cable-stayed bridges. Different

advantages of this type of bridges are pointed out and a short historical review is given. Further-

more, the erection techniques of cable-stayed bridges are briefly outlined and the cantilevering

method is explained in more detail.

Chapter 3 deals with the description of the methods of structural analysis of cable-stayed bridges

erected by the cantilevering method, whereby the focus is on the determination of an optimum

tensioning strategy. First, three different existing methods to calculate the initial cable forces

are described and compared. Then, based on the disadvantages of these methods regarding the

consideration of the actual construction process, time-dependent effects and nonlinear behavior

in the cable force calculation, a new method, namely the ”expanded unit load” method, utilizing

the idea of unit forces in the cables is presented in detail. Within the scope of this section, the

consideration of the change of structural systems during construction, second-order theory and

large displacement effects, cable sag effects and time-dependent effects, such as creep, shrink-

age and steel relaxation, in the optimization process is explained in detail. The main attention in

this explanation focuses on the time-dependent material behavior of concrete. In addition to the

description of the influence of time-dependent material behavior, different methods to predict

the effects of creep and shrinkage in a cable-stayed bridge are presented. Closing the section

about the ”expanded unit load” method, the implementation of this method into a finite element

software is demonstrated. Finally, the last part of this chapter gives an insight of the geometry

control of cable-stayed bridges by an appropriate precamber of the bridge deck.

In Chapter 4 different structural engineering software programs with special emphasis on bridge

structures are introduced and the functionality of the analysis programs Larsa2000/4th Dimen-

sion and MIDAS/Civil concerning the construction-stage analysis of cable-stayed bridges is

described. As the main focus of this thesis is the consideration of time-dependent material ef-

fects, on the basis of a simple construction stage analysis, the application of the functions to

include creep and shrinkage in Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil is proved at the end of Chapter 4.

Chapter 5 concerns itself with the construction control of cable-stayed bridges during the erec-

tion process. Possible causes of discrepancies between the predicted and actual state of a struc-

ture are revealed and a method to adjust these discrepancies without restressing already installed

cables is presented.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 5

In Chapter 6 the procedure to determine the initial cable forces, presented in Chapter 3, and the

method to control the geometry and internal forces during the cantilever construction, explained

in Chapter 5, are adopted in the analysis of a simple cable stayed bridge. The calculations are

performed by the dint of the analysis programs Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil. The first part

of this chapter shows the dimensions, structural properties and loading data of the example

model. Then, the restrictions for the optimization process are explained and the initial cable

forces and the ideal jacking distance of the right support are determined in a linear static, a

time-independent and a time-dependent construction stage analysis. The results determined

by the use of Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil are compared and the influence of time-dependent

effects on the optimum tensioning strategy is emphasized. In order to clarify the impact of

second-order theory and large-displacement effects, on the behavior of the example structure,

subsequently also a nonlinear time-dependent construction stage analysis is performed and the

results are confronted with those of the linear analysis. Finally, various error factors are incor-

porated into the analysis model and the amendment of discrepancies between the predicted and

actual state during the construction process is exemplary shown. On the basis of the results of

the adjusted analysis, the method to control the construction of cable-stayed bridges presented

in Chapter 5 is verified.

Chapter 7 summarizes the work and provides a brief conclusion to this thesis.

Chapter 2

Cable-Stayed Bridges

2.1 Introduction

Due to their aesthetic appearance, efficient utilization of structural materials, relatively small

size of the bridge elements and other notable advantages, cable-stayed bridges have gained

much popularity in recent decades. They are usually the most economical choice for spans be-

tween 200m and about 1000m.

A cable-stayed bridge consists of three principal components, namely girders, towers and in-

clined stays. The girder is supported elastically at points along its length by numerous cable

stays so that the girder can span a much longer distance without intermediate piers. The dead

and live loads of the girder are transmitted to the pylon by the inclined stay cables that are

attached to it above the bridge deck. The pylons of a cable-stayed bridge can be shaped in a

great number of ways, including A, H, X, and inverted V and Y-shapes, or combinations and

variations of these. For the cable layout a multitude of arrangements exists. The bridge can be

designed with one central or two lateral planes of stay cables that can even be inclined toward

each other. The cable system itself can be arranged as a fan system, i.e. the cables run radiating

from one point at the pylon, as a harp system, i.e. the cables run parallel from equal spacing at

the pylon or as a mixture of both. The stay cables can be anchored both on the deck and at the

pylon or can run continuously over a saddle at the top of the pylon.

The contemporary cable-stayed bridge is becoming more and more popular and is being used

where previously suspension bridge might have been chosen. Some of the advantages of cable-

stayed bridges when comparing them to suspension bridges are:

• they are self-anchored even during construction and therefore do not require the costly

counterweight required to anchor suspension bridges

CHAPTER 2. CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 7

Due to the tension forces in the stay cables, cable-stayed bridges develop high compressive

stresses in the girder. For spans up to about 350m, the concrete decks are economical because

they can utilize these axial forces as cost-free prestress. Beyond these span lengths, the concrete

decks become too heavy and costly, but a steel-only deck would also be to expensive. There-

fore, from 350m to about 700m, the composite deck is advantageous. The concrete slab of

the composite deck receives a cost-free prestress from the horizontal components of the cable

forces and is concurrently stiffened by the steel girder to resist bending. At spans beyond about

700m, the composite deck becomes too heavy, and the steel girder with an orthotropic deck

remains the only economical choice.

In the following a short historical review of cable-stayed bridges is given and then different

erection methods are introduced. Because the focus of this thesis is on the analysis of cable-

stayed bridges constructed by the cantilevering method, the main concern lies in the description

of this erection method. For further information about cable-stayed bridges in general and their

methods of construction it is referred to the literature (e.g. [15, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50]).

The concept of supporting a bridge deck by inclined tension stays and achieving a more favor-

able distribution of bending moments in the bridge deck can be traced back to the the 17th and

18th century. As at that time neither precise calculation methods nor adequate tension members

were available, some bridges collapsed and the system disappeared for about two centuries.

The reappearance of cable-stayed bridges started with Franz Dischinger, a German engineer, in

1938. He discovered the effect of stays upon the deflection characteristics of a bridge whilst

designing a suspension bridge across the Elbe River near Hamburg. From this study and from

the reconstruction of the bridges destroyed in Second World War it was found that cable-stayed

bridges had a part to play in spans between girder bridges and suspension bridges.

The 1953 completed Strömsund Bridge in Sweden, which was designed by Franz Dischinger,

is generally regarded to be the first modern cable-stayed bridge. After the Str ömsund bridge

numerous true cable-stayed bridges were constructed in Germany. The Theodor Heuss Bridge

across the Rhine River in Duesseldorf with a main span of 260m was opened to traffic in 1957,

the Severins Bridge in Cologne spanning 302m was erected between 1956 and 1961 and the

third and fourth German cable-stayed bridges, the Norderelbe Bridge in Hamburg (main span

length 172m) and the Leverkusen Bridge across the Rhine River (main span length 280m), were

CHAPTER 2. CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 8

completed in 1962 and 1964. The Theodor Heuss bridge introduced a harp-shaped cable system

with parallel stays and free-standing pylon, the Severins Bridge was the first application of an

A-shaped pylon with transversally inclined cable planes and the last two bridges were built wit a

central cable plane with pylons and stay cables positioned in the central reserve of the motorway.

However, the bridge decks of the early cable stayed-bridges built at the end of the 1950s and the

beginning of the 1960s were supported by a limited number of cables that were generally com-

posed of several prefabricated strands to achieve the required large cross-section. The Friedrich

Ebert Bridge across the Rhine River in Bonn, completed in 1964 (Homberg), was the first cable-

stayed bridge designed with a multi-strand arrangement. It contains a central cable plane with

two pylons, each supporting 2x20 stays. The spacing between the cable anchorages is only

2.24m. Since then, multistay systems have become common in modern cable-stayed bridges

where the high number of cables allows for more slender main girders that require less flexural

stiffness.

Whereas in early cable-stayed bridges steel was dominating the structural material of deck and

towers, today towers are normally of concrete; the choice of material of the bridge deck depends

on the span length as it was explained above. Nevertheless, prestressed concrete and composite

decks have increasingly been used in more recent projects.

Until today many cable-stayed bridges have been built using increasingly slender girders with

larger and larger spans. Currently, the Stonecutter Bridge in Hong Kong is under construction.

It will be the first cable-stayed bridge spanning over 1000m, but the trend goes to even bigger

spans and more slender girders with an increasing span-to depth ratio.

Cable-stayed bridges can be built using different erection techniques, which are chosen accord-

ing to local conditions and bridge characteristics. The construction methods that can be used

are:

• Construction by rotation

• Construction of the bridge deck by the incremental launching method on temporary sup-

ports in the main span

CHAPTER 2. CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 9

In the relatively simple first construction method, the entire bridge girder is erected on tempo-

rary supports or on scaffoldings that can be adjusted in order to achieve the correct position.

Thereafter, the mounting cable forces are precisely evaluated to balance the vertical deck reac-

tions on the temporary supports, leading to the pretended geometry and stress distribution. The

advantage of this erection procedure is that the deck geometry and the cable tension forces can

be controlled easily. However, the use of temporary supports fails when clearance of the main

span is required during construction and is not economical when the main span of the bridge

crosses deep water.

The construction of cable-stayed bridges by rotation is the preferred method when building over

a waterway, for example a river. The bridge deck is erected on temporary supports at the shore

parallel to the bank and after the tensioning of the stay cables it is rotated around its pylon.

When erecting a cable-stayed bridge by the incremental launching method, the superstructure is

cast-in-situ at a stationary location behind one of the abutments and is then jacked horizontally

into place. The procedure has the advantage that, in contrast to the first two methods, it does not

require falsework to cast the girder. However, all these three construction methods are generally

limited to small and medium sized cable-stayed bridges.

Nowadays, most of the cable-stayed bridges - and all long span cable-stayed bridges - are built

by the last method, the cantilevering method, which is described in more detail in the following.

The cantilevering method is a construction method where segments, either precast or cast-in-

place, are assembled and stressed together subsequently to form the self-supporting superstruc-

ture. When using the cantilevering method to erect cable-stayed bridges the procedure includes

the following stages:

1. The pylons and the girder units above the main piers are erected and fixed to the piers

advances from a short stub on top of a pier in segments of about 3m to 5m length to the

mid span or to an abutment

3. As the cantilevers grow, the stay cables are installed and post-tensioned to prevent exces-

sive deflections and to relieve bending moments in the bridge girder

4. The bridge is closed at mid span at the second abutment and the additional loading from

wearing surface is placed

method using precast segments is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

CHAPTER 2. CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 10

Depending on the specific segment configuration and erection sequence chosen for the can-

tilevering method, the cantilever may never be exactly balanced so that the superstructure needs

to be balanced to ensure stability. It is possible to fix the supports at the piers of cantilevering

superstructures and install vertical prestressing tendons. Furthermore, it is very common to

make use of an additional temporary pier with vertical prestressing that is located close to the

permanent one. This pier helps withstanding overturning moments from unbalanced load cases

on the bridge superstructure. Additionally, the lateral bending stiffness of the girder must be

sufficient, to ensure the stability of the cantilever arm during erection.

Compared to the first three construction methods described above, the cantilevering method

provides several advantages. Certainly the most important one is that no falsework or centering

is required, leaving traffic under the spans widely unobstructed during construction. Access

from the ground is only necessary for construction of the piers and abutments and in preparation

for the start of cantilevering, which starts from these locations. In contrast to the incremental

launching method, this way not only small and medium sized, but also long-span cable-stayed

bridges can be built.

Only relatively little formwork is required due to the segmental nature of the superstructure.

Cantilevering is a very feasible method if the bridge spans are too high above ground for e.g.

economical use of falsework, and if the terrain under the spans is otherwise inaccessible or

unfeasible, being e.g. a deep gorge with danger of flood events. Especially in these cases rapid

construction can be achieved with cantilevering.

CHAPTER 2. CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 11

Nevertheless, the cantilevering method also has disadvantages regarding the control of the de-

sired geometry. The erection procedure produces deflection and stress histories, which must be

carefully evaluated. Even if great flexibility and slender decks, which are now favored, gener-

ally allow for easy adjustments when geometry has not been perfectly controlled, the control of

the desired geometry becomes a major problem when constructing cable-stayed bridges by the

cantilever method.

The methods of analysis and construction control of cable-stayed bridges constructed by the

cantilevering method are explained in detail in Chapter 3 to 5 and are therefore not discussed in

this part of the report.

Following the initial choice of material for a cable-stayed bridge superstructure, the next deci-

sion to be made by the designer is the method of cantilever construction. Assuming concrete

has been selected, there are two main choices for construction:

If steel or composite sections are chosen, this choice does not exist. At least the steel girder is

always prefabricated, transported to the site and installed there.

When the cast-in-place method is used, so-called form travelers made of steel framework are

attached to the cantilever tip where they carry the formwork in which new segments are cast. A

typical casting cycle starts with the detachment of the form traveler from the previous position

after finishing all work on the last segment and the forward movement to its new position. In

order to remain balanced during advancement, the form traveler may be equipped with a coun-

terweight. Then the form traveler is adjusted and anchored to the existing superstructure at its

rear to be able to withstand overturning moments that will occur from the weight of the new

concrete. Subsequently, the external formwork is aligned to the required geometry of the next

segment, also incorporating the desired camber, the reinforcement and tendon ducts are installed

and connected with the previous ones and the concrete is placed. Before the casting cycle starts

all over again, the cast segment needs to have developed at least the specified strength to be

prestressed to the previous elements and support the subsequent one.

The maximum segment length achieved with form travelers is about 5.00 m, but there are possi-

bilities to increase the length of segments when keeping in mind the increasing weight and cost

of bigger form travelers. Moreover, a stepwise construction of the segments or a combination

of cast-in-place and precast segment sections is also possible.

CHAPTER 2. CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 12

Precast construction means that bridge members or segments are prefabricated at a location

different than the site, transported to the site, and installed there. The lifting of the precast

segments can be carried out by floating cranes or by using beam-and-winch system. The floating

crane is preferable for low-level bridges and for high level bridges it is easier to use a beam and

winch system where the segments are lifted off a barge with a winch on the deck.

The construction with precast segments has several advantages in comparison with cast-in-

place erection method. First, the casting of the segments can be performed under controlled

conditions at the precasting yard. This industrialized process allows easy quality control of

segments prior to placement in the superstructure and saves costs. Surface finishing works,

such as texturing, sandblasting, painting, and coating can be performed on the ground level

without scaffolding when the segments are still accessible from all sides prior to installation in

the superstructure. Second, the complete casting of the superstructure can be removed from the

critical path of the overall construction schedule, since superstructure segments can be precast

during construction of the substructure. Assembly of the bridge superstructure takes much less

time than cast-in-place construction, as precast segments do not need to cure on site before

being prestressed together. As segments are usually stored at the precasting yard or on site for a

while the concrete will have gained more strength until installation than cast-in-place elements

have when being loaded.

Furthermore, the time-dependent effects of concrete will be reduced due to the increased age

of the concrete segments and will thus cause smaller deflections of the superstructure than with

cast-in-place construction. However, cost for the precasting yard, storage, transportation, and

installation of precast segments needs to be evaluated in comparison with cost for the form

travelers for cast-in-place construction to achieve an economical solution.

Similar to the construction of precast concrete bridges, the segments of steel or composite

bridges can be lifted into place by derrick cranes or floating cranes. In case of pure steel

cable-stayed bridges, after lifting a new segment, it is welded to the previous one while it is

still supported by the crane. Then the cables are installed and post-tensioned and the casting

cycle starts all over again.

Composite cable-stayed bridges consist of a steel girder and a concrete slab. In this case the

steel elements are prefabricated and the girder is built by the cantilever method segment after

segment and suspended to the cables. Then the concrete slab is cast or installed (precast slab)

on the existing bridge girder. However, the concrete slab can also be constructed segment by

segment during the cantilever construction, but this may result in a slow-down of the construc-

tion process. Generally, a distance of about three segments is required to allow an installation

of the concrete slab that is independent from the construction of the steel girder.

Chapter 3

Bridges

3.1 Introduction

In cable-stayed bridges the girders are supported at several locations, namely abutments, piers

and cable points with the cables connected to the towers. The abutments and piers are usually

considered as fixed supports and the points of cable attachments are elastic supports as the ca-

bles change length under load and because the towers are also flexible and can move.

Modern bridges use closely spaced multiple stays, which leads to ease of erection and allows for

more slender main girders that require less flexural stiffness. Cable-stayed bridges are, there-

fore, highly statically indeterminate structures.

During the construction by cantilever method new girders are installed and then supported by

new cables in each erection stage. In order to balance the weight of the deck without initial

deformation due to slack and elongation of steel all stays are stressed at the time of erection. If

no provision is made for retensioning, for the subsequent construction phases, the stays act as

passive members like the pylon and the deck.

The slenderness of bridge girders in modern cable-stayed bridges requires to minimize the bend-

ing moments throughout the whole construction process and to achieve an optimal moment dis-

tribution in the finished structure under dead load. Especially in case of prestressed concrete

cable-stayed bridges it is important to choose an appropriate set of initial cable forces in or-

der to reduce time-dependent displacements and the consequential redistribution of the internal

forces due to creep and shrinkage. Theoretically it is possible to search for a scheme of initial

cable forces which minimizes those effects, but it is difficult to take the many factors affecting

the subsequent time-dependent deformations into account. Factors complicating the effects of

creep and shrinkage are, among other things, the consideration of the age of concrete, especially

when using cast-in-situ methods, and the presence of longitudinal prestressing. In these cases it

is inevitably to make some simplifications to consider the long term behavior of the structure.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 14

In cable-stayed bridges an almost stress-free condition of the girder and pylon can be achieved

by an adequate tensioning of the cables in the particular erection stages. The intention is that

the bending moments in the finished structure do not exceed tight limits. To reach this condi-

tion the designer needs to determine the optimum final moment distribution and then the initial

cable forces can be established. But it has to be considered that during erection this final dead

load condition will mainly be influenced during tensioning of the cables. The problem is that

the initial cable forces at installation and tensioning are usually quiet different from those of

the final dead load condition. As the erection proceeds the cable forces drastically change,

which has led to the practice of adjusting the tension of the stay cables during the individual

construction stages. However, adjusting stay tension forces has disadvantages that are not to be

scoffed at. Due to the high redundancy of the structural system restressing one single cable to

correct discrepancies also effects the forces in all other cables. In some cases even compressive

cable forces might develop by stressing an adjacent cable, which those tension-only members

can not withstand. Furthermore, stressing of stay cables is an expensive procedure causing an

overwhelming amount of work, especially in multi-cable-systems. Hence, the ideal solution

would be to stress each cable only once immediately after its installation or at least attempt to

reduce the number of stressing operations during the erection of cable-stayed bridges as much

as possible.

In the following, different existing methods to determine the initial cable forces are presented

and compared. Then an improved method called the ”expanded unit load” method is described

in detail and the advantages over the conventional methods are outlined.

forces in cable-stayed bridges

To analyze cable-stayed bridges a number of different techniques can be used. Indeed, because

of the large degree of indeterminateness, the analysis is relatively complicated and an exact

calculation by manual procedures is virtually an impossible task. Hence, the intention of this

report is not to go into these ’classical methods’ to estimate the cable forces in more detail.

In the literature three main categories of methods to adjust the stress distribution and the geome-

try of steel, composite or concrete cable-stayed bridges have been proposed. These methods are:

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 15

In the ”optimization method” [33, 45, 54, 56], the cable forces are determined based on certain

functions that are related to structural efficiency or economy. In order to achieve an economic

and safe solution for a cable-stayed bridge there is a multiplicity of objective functions to be

minimized. Usually it is not the intention of the optimization to consider all factors influencing

the economics of a design. Objective functions to be minimized by the optimization method

are often the volume/cost of the starting trial design, the allowable stress of materials and the

tolerance deflection for geometry control. Assuming the geometry of the bridge including the

cross sectional areas of the cables, the girder and the pylon is known, the optimum solution of a

cable-stayed bridge is, as mentioned before, the solution in which the bending moment and/or

the displacement distribution along the girder and the pylon of the finished structure reaches the

”ideal state”. For pure concrete and composite decks, the ideal bending moment distribution

after the completion of the bridge deck usually equates the moment distribution of the contin-

uous beam on rigid supports under dead load. The reason is that here the sum of the positive

and negative bending moments, and therefore the spanwise overall curvature, is zero. Hence,

moment variations due to creep and shrinkage eliminate each other and theoretically the mo-

ment distribution does not change with time. If the bending moments differ from this state, they

would change towards these values in long term anyway. The bending moment in the pylon

base is normally optimized when reaching zero or small values at the end of construction.

For the ideal displacement state, the deflections at certain locations (i.e. anchorage points of the

cable and top of the pylon) are set to zero or limited to small values.

Considering only one objective function, the moment or displacement of the ideal state, Z, can

be written as:

h iT

Z= z1 z2 ... zn (3.1)

where n is the total number of targets that need to be satisfied and T stands for the transformation

of a matrix or a vector. To approach the ideal state, Equation (3.1) needs to be as close to the

designated value as possible. The cable stresses, T, resulting from the optimal Z can be written

as:

h iT

T= t1 t2 ... tm (3.2)

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 16

By analyzing the response of a unit prestress applied at each tuning cable, the influence value

of all the targets can be obtained. When m rounds of analysis are done, the influence matrix A

can be written as:

a11 a12 ... a1m

a

21 a22 ... a2m

A= (3.3)

... ... ... ...

an1 an2 ... anm

where aij is the response at target i by prestressing the unit stress at cable j. Thus, their rela-

tionship can be written as:

AxT = Z (3.4)

If the number of cables to be tuned is the same as the number of targets, the cable stresses can

be obtained by setting Z to the designated target values and solving the linear Equation (3.4).

Indeed, engineering experience is required in selecting the cables and specifying the targets. A

bad or contradictory tuning of cables and targets may cause Equation (3.3) not to be a diagonal

dominant matrix or Equation (3.4) to be in ill condition. Using this method the number of

columns, m, of matrix A cannot be greater than the number of rows, n. If m is less than n, then

the cable stresses can be optimized so that the error of the target value, Z, and the designated

ideal state, D, is minimum. The error, E, can be written as:

E=D − Z (3.5)

One of the most effective ways to obtain the optimal Z is to minimize the square error Ω, which

can be written as:

Ω = (D − Z)2 (3.6)

∂Ω

= 0, i = 1, 2, 3, ..., m (3.7)

∂Si

By using the minimum of Ω and considering Equations (3.6) and (3.4), the following equation

can be obtained.

AT A x T = A T D (3.8)

After solving for T from the linear equation group in Equation (3.8), the optimized target value

will be known from Equation (3.4).

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 17

In practice, the following procedures are common in approaching the ideal state at service stage.

(b) Perform the static analysis under structural weight and the superimposed dead load

(c) Select the negative displacement of the girder at each anchor in (b) as D

(e) Similar to prestressing loads, reapply T on the structure and perform the analysis

(f) The sum of (b) and (e) is the ideal state of the structure at complete stage

Using the ”optimization method” it is possible to calculate the optimum initial cable forces, but

neither nonlinearity effects nor time-dependent material behavior are taken into account in the

optimization process. Furthermore, it is necessary to impose the constraints for optimization

very carefully, or else the resulting schemes may not remain within practical limits.

The ”zero displacement method” described by Wang et al. [51, 52, 53] determines the tension-

ing forces of stay cables by an iterative ”shape finding” procedure, which reduces the deflections

at the cable anchorages in each iteration step and finally makes them vanish. The idea is that

in case of a straight and horizontal bridge deck, the horizontal components of the cable forces

have little effects on the bending moments of the deck, and hence only the vertical components

influence the bending moment distribution. In this case the resulting bending moments and de-

flections in the deck are essentially those of an equivalent continuous beam with all the supports

from the cables and towers considered as rigid supports. In other words, if the deformation of

the bridge after construction looks like the deformation of an equivalent continuous beam the

”ideal state” is reached and the initial cable-forces are determined.

The computations for shape finding are performed by using the two loop iteration method,

which is started with estimated (usually zero or very small) tension forces in inclined cables.

Based on a reference configuration, having no deflection and zero prestress in girders and tow-

ers, the equilibrium of the cable-stayed bridge under dead load is first determined iteratively

(Newton-Raphson method). Although this first determined configuration satisfies the equilib-

rium and boundary conditions, in general, because of the small pretension in inclined cables,

large deflections and bending moments may appear in girders and towers.

Hence, the shape iteration has to be carried out in order to reduce the deflection and at the same

time smooth the bending moments of the girder. In doing so, the cable axial forces determined

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 18

in the previous step will be taken as the initial element forces for inclined cables for the next

iteration and the the equilibrium configuration will be determined anew.

In each iteration step the ratio of the vertical displacement to the main span length at certain

control points (usually nodes intersected by the girder and the cable) is calculated and then

compared with the convergence tolerance.

Main span length ≤ s

The shape iteration is repeated until the defined convergence tolerance is achieved.

In the described procedure, nonlinearities, such as P-Delta effects, large displacement effects

and the cable sag effect can be taken into account, but the method does not consider the stress

distribution in the pylon or the girder resulting from the tensioning procedure. Furthermore,

when the vertical profile of the bridge deck is significant, the horizontal components of the ca-

ble forces cause an additional bending moment in the girder. Even if the displacements at the

anchorage points of the cables are zero, these higher bending moments will negatively affect

the long term behavior of the bridge. Hence, the main intention of adjusting the cable stresses

should rather be to achieve a designated moment distribution than to minimize displacements.

The final geometry of the bridge can always be controlled by defining an appropriate precamber.

In contrast to the first two methods to determine the applied cable tensions, the ”force equi-

librium method” is an approach to influence the moment distribution in the bridge girder by

adjusting the tension in stay cables. The basic concept of this method was already described

1972 by Lazar et al. and repeated in 1988 and 1997 by Troitsky [47] and Gimsing [15], but it

was first proposed as the ”force equilibrium method” by Chen et al. [6, 7]. The method searches

for a ”stable” scheme of initial cable forces which will give rise to desirable bending moments

at selected locations of the structure. As this method only deals with the equilibrium of forces

rather than deformation, nonlinearities caused by cable sag and other effects do not need to

be considered during the determination of the cable forces. However, in order to determine the

corresponding final geometry of the bridge and to define a appropriate precamber it is necessary

to take these nonlinearities into account.

The first step of the ”force equilibrium method” is to choose certain sections of the bridge girder

where the bending moments are adjusted by varying the cable forces. These sections could for

example be located at the points where the stays are anchored and at the tower base. The more

control points are chosen, the better the results.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 19

To establish the target bending moments, the deck of the cable-stayed bridge is considered as

an equivalent continuous beam with all the supports from cables and towers considered as rigid

simple supports. These target bending moments are adopted, so that the effects of creep and

shrinkage can be minimized (see Section 3.2.1). If the initial bending moments in the towers

can be controlled at the same time, the scheme of initial cable forces is reasonably stable.

In the second phase, all the cables are taken away from the bridge and replaced by the internal

forces. These forces are assumed as independent variables for the adjustment of bending mo-

ments at the control sections. Then approximate influence coefficients are evaluated, which are

the bending moments at the control sections caused by a unit load in a certain cable. In order

to simplify the calculation, the weight of the cables is neglected (forces at the cable ends are

roughly equal) and it is assumed that the cable forces acting on the tower do not influence the

bending moments in the deck and similarly the other way around. Considering the equilibrium

of this phase, the following equation can be written:

M0 = A x T + M d (3.9)

where M0 is a vector containing the target bending moments, A is a matrix of the approximate

influence coefficients, T is the vector of the cable forces and Md is the vector containing the

bending moments caused by dead load and prestress only.

If M0 contains the bending moments of the equivalent continuous beam on rigid simple sup-

ports, and the control sections are well chosen so that A is nonsingular, an initial estimation of

the cable forces T can be calculated as:

However, the cable forces obtained above are only rough estimates as the interaction of the

tower, the cables and the deck has not been taken into account yet. Thus, a third stage is per-

formed in which these errors are almost eliminated. Here the cable forces at the deck anchor-

ages are taken as independent variables and the self weight of the cables can also be introduced.

Using the initial estimate of the cable forces, T0 , as well as the bending moments, Md , the

updated deck bending moments, M1 , which are normally different from the target moments,

can be calculated. Now an iteration process starts. To equate the updated moments, M 1 , with

the target moments, M0 , the following cable force adjustment, ∆T1 , is introduced:

T1 = T0 + ∆T1 (3.12)

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 20

The updated deck bending moments, M2 , can then be calculated. Since this moment still differs

from the target value further cable force adjustments, ∆T2 , ∆T3 , ..., ∆Tn , are necessary. The

above described adjustment procedure is repeated until the updated deck bending moments,

Mn , converge to M0 .

This method to obtain the initial cable forces is simpler than the traditional ”zero displacement

method”, but it is obvious that non-linear effects need to be included in the algorithm in order

to get more precise results. Furthermore, this method also does not consider time-dependent

material behavior.

Concerning the nonlinear behavior of cable-stayed bridges both the ”optimization method” and

the ”force equilibrium method” do not consider any non-linearity effects in the determination

of the initial cable forces of the complete structure. All nonlinearities of cable-stayed bridges,

such as 2nd order theory (P-Delta and large displacement) and the nonlinearity of the cables

are completely neglected and only linear-elastic structural behavior is assumed. In the ”zero

displacement method”, in contrast, a linear or a nonlinear computation procedure is possible.

In the latter the nonlinear cable sag effects, the P-Delta effects and large displacement effects

are taken into consideration. However, studies on the nonlinear analysis of cable-stayed bridges

using the ”zero displacement method” [52] showed that there are only small differences in ge-

ometry and prestress distribution between the results determined by linear and nonlinear com-

putation procedure. Therefore a reasonable optimum initial design of cable-stayed bridges can

also be achieved by a linear analysis and thus, any of the above mentioned analysis methods is

suitable. In general, the first determination of the optimum initial cable forces should always be

a simple linear analysis, because that way a lot of computation efforts can be saved.

All solutions described in Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 are based on the determination of the initial cable

forces of the final structure and do not take into account the actual construction process. This

is problematic, because the internal forces as well as the geometry of a completed cable-stayed

bridge highly depend on the construction sequence of the structure. As already mentioned

before the initial cable forces at the time of installation clearly differ from those of the final

dead load condition. Moreover, the geometric profile of the girder during the construction

greatly changes and it is important to ensure that the cantilever ends finally meet in the center

of the span.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 21

Another reason for considering the erection process is that sometimes the structural behavior

during construction might be much more critical than that of the final stage. In order to com-

plete the design of the bridge, the stresses in the cables, the girder and the pylon need to be

checked not only in the final but also in intermediate erection stages. Therefore, the internal

forces in members of the bridge structure at each erection stage have to be known.

From all this it becomes clear that for a feasible optimum design and correct modeling of a

cable-stayed bridge a detailed reference to the erection process is needed.

Backward analysis

Assuming that the ideal state determined by one of the above mentioned methods is really what

is reached at the end of construction, then there is a very popular approach to take the con-

struction sequence into account, called the backward solution. First, the final erection stage

is analyzed and the optimum complete design of the bridge is defined by any of the described

methods. Then the structure is virtually disassembled stage by stage in reverse direction to the

sequence of erection stages in the real bridge construction. It is assumed that the sequence of

events during disassembly is exactly the opposite of that which occurs during assembly. After

releasing girder segments or stay cable the internal forces of the members are determined in

each erection stage of the backward analysis. The tension in a particular cable just before its

removal can be taken as the initial stressing force of exactly this cable at the time of installation

in the real bridge construction. Hence, this reverse analysis enables the determination of initial

cable tensions that are the guidance for the forward erection in order to finally reach the ideal

state at the end of construction.

Forward analysis

The forward process analysis is performed exactly by following the sequence of erection stages

in construction. In the first construction stage, only the pylon is activated and than in the follow-

ing stages the segments and stay cables are erected and the corresponding loads are applied. The

analysis is carried out stage by stage until the bridge girder is completely erected and the results

are continuously accumulated. In order to achieve the optimum final dead load condition in the

complete structure the cable forces calculated from the backward analysis are applied as initial

tension forces at installation of the cables. In doing so, the last stage in the forward analysis

should theoretically correspond to the first stage of the backward analysis (ideal state) whereby

the construction process of the bridge is considered in the analysis.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 22

The idea of performing a backward and forward analysis is that both - if correctly applied -

give identical results for all construction stages. However, in reality this is hardly ever the case.

Changes of the structural system by removing certain elements or modifying the boundary

conditions might cause gaps between the backward and forward analysis. The reason is that

the backward method requires a stress-free situation in an element before its removal. An

example is that in the forward construction the key segment is applied in zero stress condition,

whereas in the backward analysis the closure segment is not in zero stress state after removing

the superimposed dead load. In order to also achieve a stress free situation in the backward

analysis there are the two following options:

1. Applying a detension load at the cable nearest to the closure, which makes the bending

moment at the tip of the key segment vanish

2. Applying a vertical movement at the bridge closure until the bending moment at the tip

of the key segment becomes zero

However, this way only the bending stresses in the key segment can be eliminated but stresses

caused by possible axial forces remain in the structure. Furthermore, it is a complicating proce-

dure which may require an additional optimization of the structure.

Another problem causing discrepancies between the backward and forward analysis are dis-

continuities at the joints between two segments. If elements are applied straight forward, the

forward method automatically introduces a displacement (V x , Vy , ϕz ) in the structure when

activating a new segment (see Figure 3.1), while in the backward method no discontinuity is ap-

plied when inactivating a segment. Hence, discrepancies in the deflected shape of the structure

arise.

In order to get similar results in both analyses there are two options:

The easiest option to compensate for the difference in the deformed shape is to rather apply the

new segments in the forward analysis tangentially than straight forward (Option 1). Most analy-

sis programs providing staged construction analysis features offer a function, which calculates

the real displacement/rotation for the elements installed in the following stage and thus, make

it possible to avoid these discontinuities.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 23

X1

X1

2

1 1 2

Vy

Vx

Concluding it can be stated that, as far as time-dependent effects are not considered in the anal-

ysis, it may be possible to achieve almost identical results in the backward and forward analysis

if all these remarks are taken into account. Even nonlinearities, such as P-Delta effects, large

displacement effects and the cable sag effect can be included in both methods.

However, the concept fails when time-dependent effects must be included. Because the de-

termination of concrete creep and shrinkage in modern concrete material models is forward

orientated, by performing a backward analysis the real time-factors can not be taken into con-

sideration. A backward analysis can, therefore, only roughly approximate these effects. Only a

correctly modeled forward analysis can exactly predict the state when the bridge closes in the

middle span and the condition a few years after the completion of the bridge.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 24

The ”unit load method”, suggested by Bruer et al. [4], Janjic et al. [21] and Pircher [37], is a

novel solution for the derivation of an optimal tensioning sequence of the stay cables of cable-

stayed bridges. At first a desired moment distribution in the final structure under dead load is

defined and then tensioning strategies to exactly achieve this moment distribution are computed.

In contrast to the previous described methods the ”unit load method” takes changes in the struc-

tural system during erection, time-dependent effects and geometrically nonlinear behavior into

account.

The basic idea of the ”unit load method” resembles that of the ”optimization method”. In the

first step a ”unit load case” and the ”ideal moment diagram” for the final structure are defined

(see Figure 3.2(a)). Commonly used degrees of freedom (unit loads) are:

• A unit shortening or a unit tensioning of the cables (see ”force equilibrium method”)

In the displayed example (Figure 3.2(a)) the selected degrees of freedom are tensioning of eight

cables (X1 to X8 ) and jacking of the support (X9 ).

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.2: Unit load cases and desired moment distribution [21]

The ideal dead load bending moment diagram along the girder usually equates that of an equiv-

alent continuous beam (see Section 3.2.1). Certain control sections (i.e. anchorage points of

cables) for the desired moment distribution are defined in the deck and the pylon. In Fig-

ure 3.2(b) the target bending moments (M A , M B , M C , ..., M 1 ) are given in the control points

(A, B, C, ..., 1) along the main girder.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 25

In this example the ”ideal dead load bending moment diagram” is defined for the deck girder in

nine points and also nine degrees of freedom (8 x cable tensioning + 1 x support jacking) are

selected. Setting up the same number of unit load cases as ”fixed moment” points is necessary

to directly solve the problem for the unknown factors of the defined ”unit loads”.

Now, in order to set up the ”unit force equations” , the structure is analyzed for the specific dead

load and a unit load case for each degree of freedom. The results are stored for the bending

moments in the defined control points. Thus, the following system of linear equations can be

established:

M B = MPB + MTB1 · X1 +MTB2 · X2 + ... +MTB9 · X9

:

:

M I = MPI + MTI1 · X1 +MTI2 · X2 + ... +MTI9 · X9

or more compact:

n

X

M K

= MPK + MTKm · Xm (3.13)

m=1

where MPK and MTKm are the moments in point K caused by dead load and by action T m , Tm

signifies each single unit loading case with m ranging from 1 to n (9) and X m is the unknown

multiplication factor for the particular unit load. Solving this system of equations gives the

exact multiplication factors, Xm , for the chosen degrees of freedom, Tm , to achieve the desired

moment distribution.

This example basically corresponds to the procedure of the ”optimization method”, which is

described in Section 3.2.1. The system of Equations 3.13 almost resembles Equation 3.4 in

matrix-notation, where the target values, zk , equate M k − MPk . The reason is that in this simple

example no nonlinearities are included, time-dependent effects are not considered and it is as-

sumed that the tensioning of the cables takes place in the final system. Hence, so far there is no

improvement compared to any of the analysis methods mentioned in Section 1.2.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 26

In order to apply the ”unit load method” in practical design situations, it is expanded to include

the following effects in the determination of the optimum design:

As already mentioned above the continuous change of structural systems during construction

of a cable stayed bridge considerably affects the distribution of internal forces in the complete

structure. Different construction techniques require different tensioning strategies. For exam-

ple, where temporary supports are used, the boundary conditions during erection change and

the final dead load condition may be strongly influenced.

These changes in the structural system during construction of a cable-stayed bridge can easily

be taken into account by analyzing different structural systems according to the various con-

struction stages. This must be done for the dead load as well as for the unit load cases to allow

for the tensioning to take place at the time of installation of each particular cable. When taking

into account the construction process, the unit tensioning of the cables as well as the dead load

of the segments are not applied to the complete structure, but to the different structural systems

which exist at the individual construction stages (see Figure 3.3). In this manner also the influ-

ences that might occur after installation and tensioning of each cable are considered.

Figure 3.3: Unit load cases considering the construction process [4]

The resulting equations and their solution for the required multiplication factors are similar

to the above described simple example. The only difference is that in the calculation of the

moments in point K caused by dead load, MPK , and by the unit tensioning of the cables, MTKm ,

the influence of the different stages is taken into account.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 27

Geometric nonlinearity effects such as P-Delta and large displacement effects are present in

the girder and the tower when subjected to compressive loads and moments simultaneously.

In cable-stayed bridges, most of the permanent load is carried by axial force in the particular

members. Whereas the cable stays are subjected to high pretension forces, the pylon and the

girder receive large compression forces. The relative magnitude of these compression forces

compared to the critical Euler value may cause significant nonlinear effects even if the bending

moments of cable-stayed bridges are relatively small.

There are no specified rules under which circumstances second order theory and large dis-

placement need to be taken into account. In general it can be stated that, because of the huge

axial compression forces accumulating along the girder and the pylon after the completion of

the bridge, P-delta effects should be considered in most cable-stayed bridges. Large displace-

ment effects, in contrast, usually only need to be considered for long-span cable-stayed bridges

erected by cantilever method. This is due to the fact that for small structures the deformations

compared to the overall structural dimensions are small [42], and large displacement usually

only develop in large structures having spans of more than 600m.

However, especially in the case of large structures these nonlinear effects may significantly in-

fluence the behavior of cable-stayed bridges and should therefore be included in the analysis.

The second order theory considers the nonlinear axial force- and bending moment-deformation

relationships for the towers and longitudinal girder elements of cable-stayed bridges under com-

bined bending and axial forces. When the deflections in a structural system are assumed to be

small, the axial and flexural stiffnesses of bending members are usually considered to be uncou-

pled. However, when deformations are no longer small, there is an interaction between axial

and flexural deformations in such members.

The P-Delta analysis of a structure accounts for this secondary structural behavior when axial

and transverse (bending) loads are applied simultaneously. The lateral deflection and the axial

force are interrelated so that the bending stiffness depends on the element axial force, and the

presence of bending moments will affect the axial stiffness. In case of element tension forces,

the bending moment of the member due to second order effects reduces (Figure 3.4(a), whereas

compression forces increase the member forces (Figure 3.4(b)). The given effects of a com-

pression or tension force are tantamount to an increase or decrease in the bending stiffness of

the member.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 28

P-Delta effect

ignored

P-Delta effect

considered

P-Delta effect

Free body diagram ignored

P-Delta effect

considered

Before deflection After deflection

As already mentioned above the members of the girder and the tower of cable-stayed bridges

are usually subjected to large compression forces. Hence, when P-Delta effects are taken into

account the bending stiffness of the members of the bridge decreases, and the relationship be-

tween the axial force and the bending moment is nonlinear.

However, because the stiffness matrix depends on the unknown displacements, the decrease

in stiffness of the girder and the tower of cable-stayed bridges can only be determined by an

iterative process. The static equilibrium equations need to be formulated with respect to the

deformed geometry of the structure, which is not known in advance and will change in each

step of iteration until certain convergence requirements are satisfied.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 29

In a linear structural analysis, it is assumed that geometric changes in the structure during the

application of the design loads, are small, so that the original geometry can be used to compute

the member lengths, member slopes, and load moment arms. In this case the overall stiffness

of the structure in the deformed shape is considered to be equal the stiffness of the undeformed

structure. However, in cable-stayed bridges, as very flexible structures, displacements of several

meters may occur under normal design loads, and accordingly, significant changes in the bridge

geometry may occur. In such a case, the stiffness of the bridge in the deformed shape should be

computed from the new geometry of the structure.

When large displacements of a structural system are considered, the equilibrium conditions

between internal and external forces still have to be satisfied as [54]:

Z

Ψ(a) = B̄T · σ dV − f = 0 (3.14)

V

where Ψ is the sum of internal and external generalized forces, a is the nodal displacement, σ

the stress, and B̄ is the strain-displacement relationship:

= B̄ · a (3.15)

The bar suffix shows that the relationship is no longer linear since large deformations are con-

sidered. The strain now depends on the displacement as:

B̄ = B0 + BL (a) (3.16)

If strains are reasonably small, then the general elastic relation can be written as:

σ = D · ( − 0 ) + σ0 (3.17)

where D is the elastic stiffness matrix, 0 is the initial strain and σ0 is the initial stress.

In order to solve for a) with the given external load f , the Newton-Raphson method can be

adopted. The procedure of this method is explained in detail by Zienkiewics et al. [57].

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 30

nonlinear analysis, superposition of the results of the different construction stages is no longer

possible. Rather than accumulating the resulting internal forces, loads must be accumulated and

the influence of previous construction stages can be taken into account as initial displacements

[21]. Thus the Equation system (3.13) also becomes nonlinear.

In order to obtain a solution in nonlinear analysis it is necessary to employ an iterative technique.

A process based on the already mentioned Newton-Raphson has to be implemented to solve

this problem. Generally, as a first approximation, an initial linear analysis of the system can

be performed and the resulting tension forces of the cables can then be applied as starting

values for the iterative procedure. In every iteration step, the tangent stiffness matrix for the ”P-

Delta” effects is updated. The estimated initial tension forces are then improved by transforming

the equation system for the tension forces to define the iterative correction. The procedure is

repeated until convergence is reached.

A fundamental problem encountered in cable structures of all types is the nonlinear behavior of

the cable system as a result of the changes in sag and corresponding axial tension. Nonlinearity

in the cables occurs as the load increases and the cable sag decreases producing an increase in

cable chord length with an associated elongation of the cable.

The cables are assumed to be perfectly flexible and possess only tension stiffness; they are inca-

pable of resiting compression, shear and bending forces. When the weight is neglected, a cable

can be considered as a straight member. However, this is not the case anymore when the self

weight of the cable is considered. The only case where an axially loaded cable is without a sag

is when the cable is vertical. As soon as a cable supporting its own uniformly distributed weight

is inclined and the ends are connected to stable anchorages, the cable will sag into a catenary

shape, as illustrated in Figure 3.5.

Since the mathematical expression for a parabolic curve is simple when compared with the

equation for a catenary curve, for stay cables it is usually assumed that the cable has a parabolic

shape. According to Podolny [40] the substitution of the parabolic curve for the catenary curve

of an inclined cable chord in cable-stayed bridges is a good approximation when:

sag

• the sag to span ratio n = l

is less than 0.15,

• the ratio of the horizontal cable component to the total weight of the cable exceeds unity,

H0

W

≥1

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 31

The general theory of cables is reviewed in various textbooks on structural analysis. Extensive

information on the structural behavior of cables is given in Peterson [36], and a detailed study

on cables and cable systems is provided by Gimsing [15]. In this work only a summary of the

theory and the application to cable-stayed bridges is given.

The cable sag becomes an important factor during construction when the tension in the cables

is temporary reduced. With changing sag, the axial stiffness of a cable will change, and thus,

the stress/strain relationship of a cable is highly nonlinear. A typical load deflection curve of a

cable is shown in Figure 3.6. As illustrated it is convenient to measure elongations from a given

initial condition (i.e. initial dead load condition of the cable). In Figure 3.6 T 0 defines the cable

force in the initial condition and c0 is the corresponding chord length. For higher cable forces

the chord length will increase and for cable forces of less than T 0 the chord length will decrease.

metric sense are introduced by large displacements.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 32

In the literature several methods to consider the nonlinear behavior of cables elements have

been proposed by various authors. In this report two of these approaches are demonstrated and

briefly explained.

The first approach assumes that the cable is a straight, inclined member, in which the sag ef-

fect has to be taken into account. For this purpose several investigators suggest the use of an

equivalent straight cable element with an equivalent modulus of elasticity. However, each of

the approaches results in the solution introduced by Ernst [11], who was the first presenting a

concept of a cable equivalent modulus of elasticity, which is based on the parabolic cable curve

but can well describe the catenary action of the cable.

If the change in tension force for a cable during a load increment is not large, the axial stiff-

ness of the cable will not change significantly and the equivalent modulus of elasticity of the

cable can be considered constant during the load increment. The equivalent tangent modulus of

elasticity (see Figure 3.7(a)) is given by the following expression:

E

Eeq,tan = (w·L)2

(3.18)

1+ 12·T 3

· AE

where Eeq = equivalent modulus of elasticity

E = modulus of elasticity of the cable

w = specific weight of the cable, weight per unit volume

A = the cross-sectional area of the cable

L = horizontal projected length of the cable

T = tension force in the cable

If the tension in the cable varies considerably during a load increment, the axial stiffness of the

cable will significantly change and the equivalent modulus of elasticity over the load increment

is given by the secant modulus of elasticity (see Figure 3.7(b)).

E

Eeq,sec = (w·L)2 ·(T1 +T2 )

(3.19)

1+ 24·T12 ·T22

· AE

where the subscripts i and j denote the initial and final value of tension over the load increment.

Figure 3.7: Definition of the tangent and secant modulus of elasticity of a cable [15]

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 33

The cable equivalent modulus of elasticity combines both the effects of material and geometric

deformation. It can be noticed that the value of the equivalent modulus is dependent upon the

weight and the tension in a cable. With an increasing tensile stress or decreasing weight of the

cable, the sag decreases and results in an increase in the apparent axial stiffness of the cable.

Hence, the axial stiffness of the actual cable can be expressed by the axial stiffness of the equiv-

alent element combining cable sag and cable tension determined by the above equations.

Indeed, according to Karoumi [22] the equivalent modulus approach results in softer cable re-

sponse as it accounts for the sag effect but does not account for the stiffening effect due to

large displacements. Thus the linear analysis utilizing the equivalent modulus approach, is not

satisfactory for modern cable-stayed bridges. As those long-span bridges are generally highly

flexible structures, they are subjected to large displacements, and should therefore be analyzed

taking all sources of geometric nonlinearity into account. Furthermore, in the analysis of the

construction process of a cable-stayed bridge, the high stress variations in the cables due to

the lifting of new segments and the installation and pretensioning of new cables, will make it

difficult to calculate a proper equivalent modulus of elasticity.

The procedure presented in Karoumi [22] considers a catenary element which can correctly

model the geometric change of the stay cable at any tension level. In contrast to the first ap-

proach, it is possible to include the effect of pretension of the cable and the exact treatment of

cable sag and cable weight. The complete geometry of the cable, the cable element internal

force vector and the tangent stiffness matrix are determined.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 34

E = modulus of elasticity of the cable

A = cross sectional area of the cable

w = the weight per unit length

Assuming that the cable is perfectly flexible and Hooke’s law is applicable to the cable material,

the exact relations between the element projections and cable force components at the ends of

the element are:

Lu 1 P4 + T j

Lx = −P1 · + · ln (3.20)

EA w Ti − P 2

1 Tj − T i

Ly = · (Tj2 − Ti2 ) + (3.21)

2EAw w

where Ti and Tj are the cable tensions at the two nodes of the element.

P3 = −P1 ; P4 = w · Lu − P2 (3.22)

q q

Ti = P12 + P22 ; Tj = P32 + P42 (3.23)

the Expressions (3.20) and (3.21) can be rewritten in terms of the end forces P 1 and P2 only, as:

Differentiating Equation (3.24) and rewriting the results using matrix notation gives:

dLx = dP1 + dP2 ; dLy = dP1 + dP2 (3.25)

∂P1 ∂P2 ∂P1 ∂P2

( ) ∂Lx ∂Lx

( ) ( )

dLx ∂P1 ∂P2 dP 1 dP 1

(3.26)

= = F

dLy

∂Ly ∂Ly

dP2 dP2

∂P1 ∂P2

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 35

" #

k1 k2

K = F−1 = (3.27)

k3 k4

The tangent stiffness matrix, Kt , and the corresponding internal force vector, P, for the cable

element can now be obtained in terms of the four nodal degrees of freedom as (noting that

k2 = k3 ):

−k1 −k2 k1 k2

P 1

P

−k4 k2 k4

2

Kt = ; P = (3.28)

−k1 −k2

P3

−k4 P4

where

1 Lu 1 P4 P2

k1 = − · + · + (3.29)

detF EA w Tj Ti

1 P1 1 1

k1 = k 3 = · · − (3.30)

detF w Tj Ti

1 Lx 1 P4 P2

k4 = · + · + (3.31)

detF P1 w Tj Ti

Lu 1 P4 P2 Lx 1 P4 P2

detF = − − · + · + · +

EA w Tj Ti P1 w Tj Ti

2

P1 1 1

− · − (3.32)

w Tj Ti

The element tangent stiffness matrix, Kt , relates the incremental element nodal force vector

{∆P1 , ∆P2 , ∆P3 , ∆P4 }T to the incremental element nodal displacement vector {∆u1 , ∆u2 ,

∆u3 , ∆u4 }. To evaluate the tangent stiffness matrix, Kt , the end forces P1 and P2 must be de-

termined first. Those forces are adopted as the redundant forces and are determined, from given

positions at cable end nodes, using an iterative stiffness procedure. This procedure requires

starting values for the redundant forces.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 36

Based on the catenary relationships the following expressions will be used for starting values:

w Lx w cosh λ

P1 = − and P2 = · −Ly · + Lu (3.33)

2λ 2 sinh λ

s

L2u − L2y

where λ= 3· −1 (3.34)

L2x

In cases where Equation (3.34) cannot be used because the unstressed cable length is less than

the chord length, a conservative value of 0.2 for λ is assumed.

Using Equations (3.22) and (3.23), new cable projections corresponding to the assumed end

forces P1 and P2 are now determined directly from Equations (3.20) and (3.21) and the misclo-

sure vector {∆Lx , ∆Ly } is evaluated as the positions of the end nodes are given. Corrections

to the assumed end forces can now be made using the computed misclosure vectors as:

( ) ( ) ( )i+1 ( )i ( )

∆P1 ∆Lx P1 P1 ∆P1

= K ; = + (3.35)

∆P2 ∆Ly P2 P2 ∆P2

A similar iteration procedure can also be performed to determine the unstressed cable length,

Lu , if the initial cable tension is known instead.

It becomes clear that the adopted catenary elements are efficient for a nonlinear analysis of

cable-stayed bridges. The tangential stiffness matrix, K, can be obtained by an iterative pro-

cess, which takes the effect of pretension of the cable as well as the exact cable sag and cable

weight into account. However, all equations used in described procedure are based on a two-

dimensional catenary element. In most modern analysis programs providing nonlinear analysis

options, the cable stiffness is calculated by similar procedures which are extended for three-

dimensional modeling.

Taking into account the nonlinear behavior of the cable elements in the determination of the ini-

tial tension forces using the ”unit load method” has similar consequences on the basic system

of Equations (3.13) as the consideration of the second order theory and large displacement ef-

fects. Equation system (3.13) becomes nonlinear and can only be solved by an iterative method.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 37

Stress and strain in reinforced or prestressed concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges are sub-

jected to change over a long period of time. The effects causing these time-dependent changes

in the structural include:

• Concrete creep strain, which is the time-dependent change in strain under sustained load

• Concrete shrinkage, which is the time-dependent change in strain under constant temper-

ature

• Relaxation of tension cables, which is the loss of prestress in elements when subjected to

constant strain

• Concrete aging - as concrete ages the modulus of elasticity increases, quickly at first and

more slowly as curing slows down

Creep and shrinkage as well as concrete aging effect correspond to a time-dependent change of

the modulus of elasticity of the concrete. The relaxation of the cable stays basically describes

the creep effect of prestressed steel, which causes a loss in tension of the steel cables over time.

However, it has been shown in several investigations that these time-dependent processes can

be treated as nonlinear problems in close analogy to the consideration of second order theory,

large displacements and cable sag effects. In order to take these effects into account during the

determination of the initial cable forces, time functions for the materials need to be employed

and included in the analysis method.

In concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges creep has a significant influence on the girder

deflection and the cable forces during and after construction of the bridge. In order to reach the

ideal final state, not only the time of completion, but also the final stress state after termination

of the influence of creep has to be included in the analysis. Furthermore, the deformed shape of

the structure in all construction stages, including the stage just before closure, highly depends

on the magnitude of creep deformations as they can be 1.5-3.0 times more than elastic defor-

mations. Because about 50% of the creep deformations take place in the first few months, the

amount of creep deflection can already be significant at the time of completion of the structure.

Considering this fact is particulary relevant when computing the casting curves for the structure.

In order to achieve reliable results for all erection stages, the load history and the casting se-

quence must be taken into account very accurately. Particularly, for cast-in-place concrete can-

tilever bridges, due to the difference of concrete age between the girder segments, creep effects

of concrete are highly influenced by the casting and loading time of the particular segments.

Thus, creep must be considered in detail through the whole construction process and thereafter.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 38

Creep is the time dependent increase in strain of under constant applied loads. The creep de-

formations in a member are, therefore, a function of sustained stress, but there are many other

parameters that influence the effect of creep, including:

• the aggregates

• etc.

All these parameters allow predicting the creep phenomenon and, therefore the behavior of a

structure. They are included in most creep formulation to predict creep effects. Brief descrip-

tions of some creep guidelines and specifications are given later in this chapter.

The total creep of the girder of a cable-stayed bridge can be separated in creep effects due to

bending stresses resulting from external loads and creep effects due to axial compression intro-

duced by the stay cables and post-tensioning. In this work the effect of post-tensioning is not

investigated in more detail. However, losses in prestress due to creep are different for tendons

with pre- and post-tensioning.

At each cable anchorage, high compression forces are induced to the bridge deck of a cable-

stayed bridge. Because of these high compression forces compared to relatively low bending

moments the girder of a cable-stayed bridge can usually be assumed to be uncracked during all

construction stages. Hence, creep deformations of cracked sections are also not considered in

this report.

As already mentioned, creep deformations in concrete are a function of sustained stress. As-

suming that the stress is proportional to the strain, the instantaneous strain that occurs during

the application of stress is expressed as follows:

σc (t0 )

c (t0 ) = (3.36)

Ec (t0 )

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 39

Ec (t0 ) = the modulus of elasticity of the concrete at age t0

Under sustained stress , the strain increases with time due to creep and the total strain at time t

can be expressed as follows (see Figure 3.9):

σc (t0 )

c (t0 ) = [1 + φ(t, t0 )] (3.37)

Ec (t0 )

t = the age at loading

t0 = the age for which strain is calculated

The ratio of creep to instantaneous strain, φ, is dependent on the stress level in the material.

It’s value increases with the decrease of age at loading, t0 , and the increase of length of period,

(t − t0 ) during which the stress is sustained. The relationship between the instantaneous elastic

strain and the plastic strain due to creep is basically linear, but the rules to determine the creep

factor, ϕ, are generally very complex.

Figure 3.9: Creep of concrete under the effect of sustained stress [14]

The magnitude of creep can be estimated at various levels. The choice of level usually depends

on demand of accuracy and the quality of the data available for the design. In cases where

only a rough estimate of the creep is required an estimate can be made on the basis of a few

parameters such as relative humidity, age of concrete and member dimensions. On the other

extreme, in the case of deformation-sensitive structures, estimates are based on comprehensive

laboratory testing and mathematical and computer analyses. Ideally, a compromise has to be

sought between the simplicity of the prediction procedure and the accuracy of results obtained.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 40

Several material models for concrete creep and shrinkage have been proposed both in literature

and in national and international codes. Different models for predicting the magnitude of creep

require different input parameters. A few of these parameters influencing the creep deforma-

tion have already been mentioned above. However, there are a lot more variables which can be

separated in intrinsic and extrinsic variables. Intrinsic factors (e.g. aggregate type and water

cement ratio) are fixed once concrete is cast, extrinsic variables (e.g. temperature and relative

humidity) can change through the life span of the structure.

The following eight empirically based models are commonly uses to predict creep strains with-

out the need for creep tests:

• BS 8110 (1985)

• AS 3600 (1988)

• CEB-FIB (1970)

• CEB-FIB (1978)

• CEB-FIB (1990)

With the exception of the RILEM Model B3 (1995), the models considered derive from struc-

tural design codes of practice and express creep strain as the product of the elastic deformation

of the concrete and the creep coefficient, which has already been demonstrated in Equation

(3.1).

Since the purpose of since work is not the evaluation of different models for predicting creep,

it is not the intention to go into the degree of accuracy of these different creep models in more

detail. In fact, none of these models predict creep effects perfectly, although some formulas are

definitely more accurate than others. They all require a different number of certain parameters

and thus, they are complex or accurate to a greater or lesser extent.

In order to get an overview of the parameters that are relevant for the determination of creep

deformations, Table 3.1 gives a summary of the factors accounted for by the different prediction

methods.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 41

TableTable

3.1: 1Summary

Summary of

of factors

Factors accounted for by

Accounted for byDifferent

differentPrediction

predictionMethods

methods [12]

B3 (1995)

SABS 0100 (1992)

(1978)

CEB – FIP (1970)

AS 3600 (1988)

ACI 209 (1992)

BS 8110 (1985)

RILEM Model

CEB - FIP

METHOD

Aggregate Type X

A/C Ratio X

Air Content X

Cement Content X X

Intrinsic Factors

Cement Type X X X X

Concrete Density X X

Slump X

W/C Ratio X X

Water Content X

Age of Sample X

Applied Stress X X X X X X X X

Cross-section Shape X

Extrinsic Factors

Curing Conditions X

Duration of Load X X X X X X

Effective Thickness X X X X X X X X

Relative Humidity X X X X X X X X

Temperature X X

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 42

Nowadays the most commonly used models for predicting creep and shrinkage are those sug-

gested by the ACI Committee 209 (1992) and the CEB-FIB model code (1990). The details of

the assumptions and expressions of the recommendations are different and will not be discussed

here. The ACI model is simpler but the CEB-FIP (1990) is based on a product approach, which

considers latest researches and includes a certain nonlinearity of creep in case of high stresses.

Many new design codes, such as Eurocode, DIN, etc. are based on the rules of this model code.

Therefore, this concept is also adopted for considering creep effects during the determination

of initial cable forces of cable-stayed bridges. The details of the procedure are explained in

Section 1.3.4.6.

3.3.4.2 Shrinkage

Shrinkage as well as creep highly influences the the girder deflection and the internal forces

during and after construction of a cable-stayed bridge. The axial shortening and bending de-

formations of the girder and the pylon caused by the evolution of shrinkage with time must be

taken into account in order to predict the correct deck geometry and girder stresses at every

construction stage.

Shrinkage is defined as the deformation of concrete in the absence of applied load. There

are four main types of shrinkage in concrete; plastic, autogeneous, carbonation, and drying

shrinkage. Plastic shrinkage is due to moisture loss from the concrete before the concrete sets.

Autogeneous shrinkage is associated with the loss of water from the capillary pores due to the

hydration of the cement. This type of shrinkage tends to increase at higher temperatures and at

higher cement contents. In general, it is relatively small and is not distinguished from shrinkage

caused by drying of concrete. Carbonation shrinkage is caused by the carbonation of hydrated

cement products. This type of shrinkage is usually limited to the surface of the concrete. Drying

shrinkage can be defined as the volumetric change due to drying of the concrete.

The factors that affect the magnitude of shrinkage in concrete are basically the same as the pa-

rameters influencing the effects of creep mentioned above. The only difference is that shrinkage

does not depend on the applied loads; even unloaded elements will shrink.

The major part of axial shortening due to shrinkage is caused by drying shrinkage. When the

change in volume by drying shrinkage is restrained stresses develop. In reinforced concrete

structures, the restraint may be caused by the reinforcing steel, by the supports or by the differ-

ence in volume change in various parts of the structure. Due to tensile stresses caused by the

restraint conditions drying shrinkage can cause cracking in concrete. Thus, drying shrinkage is

related to not only the amount of shrinkage, but also the modulus of elasticity, creep, and tensile

strength of the concrete. All of these properties vary with time, so it is difficult to determine the

cracking tendency of the concrete based solely on shrinkage. Therefore, the modeling of creep

and shrinkage of concrete has to take into account many different variables.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 43

Stresses caused by shrinkage are generally reduced by the effect of creep of concrete. Thus the

effects of these two simultaneous phenomena must be considered in stress analysis. For this

purpose, the amount of free shrinkage and an expression for its variation with time are needed.

Shrinkage starts to develop at time ts when moist curing stops. The strain that develops due to

free shrinkage between ts and a later time t may be expressed as follows:

hardening up to time infinity

βs (t0 ) = a function of time which depends upon the size

and shape of the element

As creep and shrinkage cannot be separated from each other, for the prediction of the amount

of shrinkage in concrete, the same prediction models as for creep may be used. In this case

the shrinkage coefficient will also be determined by using the CEB-FIB (1990) model, which is

explained in Section 1.3.4.6.

As already mentioned, the creep effect on prestressed steel is called relaxation. The stress

relaxation in steel is the loss of tension of a member (tendon/cable) when it is prestressed and

maintained at a constant strain and temperature for a long period of time. Prestress loss due

to relaxation varies with the magnitude of initial stress, elapsed time in which the stress is

applied and material properties. An equation widely used for the relaxation at any time, τ , of

stress-relieved wires or strands is:

σpr log(τ − t0 ) σp0 σp0

= 1− · − 0.55 , where, ≥ 0.55 (3.39)

σp0 C fpy fpy

where: fpy = the ’yield’ stress, defined as the stress at a strain of 0.01

σp0 = the initial stress

σpr = the stress after loading for a period of time (τ − t0 )

(τ − t0 ) = the period in hours for which for which the member is stressed

C = a product-specific constant, C = 10 for general steel and

C=45 for low relaxation steel are typically used

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 44

Material properties that are influenced by time include the strength f ck0

(t) and the stiffness Ec (t)

of concrete. The strength and stiffness of concrete increase significantly during the first month

after casting; then they increase more slowly over the remainder of life of the structure. Aging

strains are fictitious used in an analysis to allow for time dependent stiffness.

Aging strain, a (t), can be defined as the decrease in elastic strain over time due to the increase

in elastic modulus of concrete (see Figure 3.10).

The elastic strain, el (t), is a stress originated strain and is the independent variable in the

concrete stress strain relationship:

Ec (t) = the instantaneous modulus of elasticity at time t

Aging strain does not represent an actual physical deformation of the concrete and should in-

stead be considered as a correction factor for the calculation of the current total stress as a

function of the current total strain. Under constant stress, the aging strain increment, δ a , oc-

curring between time tn−1 and tn may be expressed as follows:

1 1

δa = σ · − (3.41)

Ec (tn−1 ) Ec (tn )

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 45

The total strain, (t), of a uniaxially loaded concrete specimen at the time t after the casting of

the concrete can be found by the superposition of elastic, creep, shrinkage and thermal strains

as follows:

(t) = el (t) + cc (t) + sh (t) + a (t) + T (t) (3.42)

el (t) = the instantaneous elastic strain at time t

cc (t) = the creep strain at time t

sh (t) = the shrinkage strain at time t

a (t) = the aging strain at time t

RT

T (t) = T0 α dT , the thermal dilatation at time t

(Assuming a constant temperature, T (t) will not be of interest)

An important assumption made here is that the total strain in the concrete may be considered as

a superposition of all these independent components caused by different phenomena. According

to Bažant [2] this principal of superposition is considered valid if the following conditions are

satisfied:

• the stresses are less than about 45% of the concrete strength

• no large, sudden, stress increase long after the initial loading occurs

Even though in practice all of these conditions may be violated to some extent, it has been exper-

imentally verified that these assumptions are acceptable. Under good design and construction

practices, the first and third condition, which are the most important, are generally true and only

the other two, least important conditions suffer more substantial violations.

The meaning of each of the above listed strain components is illustrated for the case of a struc-

ture under constant stress and no temperature change in Figure 3.11. Even though creep and

shrinkage occur simultaneously in real structures, for practical analysis and design purposes,

elastic shortening, creep and shrinkage are separately considered. Furthermore, in most cases

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 46

the apparent elastic strain, el (t0 ), instead of true elastic strain, el (t), is considered in the anal-

ysis.

Creep strain is dependent on stress and may be graphically depicted by creep isochrones (see

Figure 3.12), which are the lines connecting the values of strain produced by various constant

stresses during a given time interval. Figure 3.12 shows that for stresses up to about 50% of the

concrete strength, the creep is approximately proportional to stress.

Figure 3.12: Creep isochrones [2] Figure 3.13: Typical creep curves

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 47

t = the time (normally age of concrete)

J(t, t0 ) = the compliance (creep) function, which represents the strain at time t

produced by a unit constant stress that has been acting since time t 0

0

(t) = the stress-independent inelastic strain(sh + T )

Due to the proportionality off creep strain to stress, the creep is fully represented by J(t, t 0 ),

the typical shape of which is sketched in Figure 3.13. As shown here, the compliance function,

J(t, t0 ), can be presented by the sum of initial elastic strain and creep strain as follows:

1 1 + φ(t, t0 )

J(t, t0 ) = + C(t, t0 ) = (3.44)

E(t0 ) E(t0 )

C(t, t0 ) = the creep compliance (specific creep)

φ(t, t0 ) = the ratio of creep deformation to the elastic deformation

(dimensionless creep coefficient, see Section 3.3.4.1)

As already mentioned in Section 3.3.4.1 there are different methods in order to specify the creep

coefficient and the compliance function, J(t, t0 ), resulting out of it. Here the CEB-FIP 1990

model shall be used, which is explained in Section 3.3.4.6.

The stresses and deformations of a cable-stayed bridge continually change during both the con-

struction phase and the service life of the structure. These variations are caused by the structure

modification as well as creep and shrinkage. In order to accurately account for time dependent

variables, a time history of stresses in a member and creep coefficients for numerous loading

ages are required. As a result, the above expressions, which are based on constant stress, must

be adopted to situations of varying stress.

The following outlines a method of calculating creep in which specific functions are numeri-

cally expressed, and stresses are integrated over time. Using superposition, the strain, due to

any stress history σ(t), may be obtained regarding the history as the sum of increments dσ(τ )

applied at increments of time, τ . Equation (3.14) may then be written as:

σ(t) t

∂σ

Z Z

(t) = 0

J(t, τ ) dσ(τ ) + (t) = σ(t0 ) J(t, t0 ) + J(t, τ ) dτ + 0 (t) (3.45)

σ(t0 ) t0 ∂τ

For the evaluation of this integral-type stress-strain-time relationship, different numerical meth-

ods can be used. In this study, two methods for the time-dependent analysis of structures are

presented, the general step-by-step method and the age adjusted modulus method.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 48

Step-by-step method

In the step-by-step method, a numerical solution technique is employed using the incremental

form of Equation (3.45). The total time is divided into a number of time steps the length of

which should increase with time. Assuming the number of time intervals is i, the discrete

intervals are t0 , t1 , ..., tj , ...ti , where the time ti+1 = t is the time at the end of the last interval.

Figure 3.14 illustrates the notation used for the step by step numerical analysis. The stress

increment which occurs during the j-th time interval, ∆σ j , is assumed to be applied at the

middle of the interval (time tj ). The elastic strain component is calculated at that time with

E(tj ), and creep is determined from time tj on. At the end of the j-th time interval the strain

increment is:

and similarly at the end of the i-th interval the strain increment is:

The total concrete strain at the end of the i-th time interval is obtained by superposition of

the strain increments caused by stress changes in all previous time intervals and by shrinkage.

Equation (3.45) can now be simplified as follows:

i

X

(t) = (ti+1 ) = σ(t0 ) J(t, t0 ) + ∆σj · J(ti+1 , tj ) + 0 (t) (3.48)

j=1

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 49

1+φ(t,τ )

Using J(t, τ ) = E(τ )

Equation (3.48) can also be rewritten as:

i

σ(t0 ) X ∆σj

(t) = · [1 + φ(t, t0 )] + · [1 + φ(t, tj )] + 0 (t) (3.49)

E(t0 ) j=1

E(tj )

If the strain, (t), is known at the end of all intervals in the step-by-step analysis, the stress at

the end of the i-th interval can be calculated by Equation (3.48), provided the stress at the end

of the preceding interval has already been determined.

" i−1 #

E(ti ) X 1 + φ(ti+1 , tj

σi+1 = σi−1 + 0

(ti+1 ) − (ti+1 ) − ∆σj (3.50)

1 + φ(ti+1 , ti ) j=1

E(tj )

the entire stress history for all elements in the analysis and to retrieve all these stresses for

each new time interval in which the strain increment is to be calculated. This requires an enor-

mous amount of storage space and significant retrieval times. If the creep compliance function,

J(t, τ ), in Equation (3.45) is expressed in a rate-type creep law (i.e. creep law represented by a

system of first-order differential equations), the need for saving the entire stress time history can

be eliminated. Converting the creep compliance function, J(t , τ ), can be done by approximating

it by the degenerate kernel as follows:

n

1 X 1 −(t−τ )/Γµ

(3.51)

J(t, τ ) = + · 1 − e

E(τ ) µ=1

Eµ0 (τ )

τ = the time of loading

Eµ (τ ) = coefficients related to the initial shapes of specific creep curves

0

Γµ = constants called retardation times

n = the number of retardation times in the Dirichlet series

When this function is introduced into the superposition integral (Equation(3.45)) the integrand

degenerates into the product of a function of τ and a function of t. The latter function does not

involve the variable of integration and can be extracted from the integral, leaving only an inte-

gration of functions that are independent of t. Thus, at each new time step, it is only necessary

to compute the change in value of the integral from the last time step rather than from the time

of initial loading.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 50

The presented method is greatly affected by the analysis time interval. While creep is consid-

ered exactly with Equation (3.49) for systems having a constant strain, for systems having a

varying strain an error is introduced. The contributions to the strain from the nodal displace-

ments due to creep between subsequent stages are ignored. However, this approximation has

proved to be good if the time steps of an analysis are short enough.

Time intervals for construction stages in general cases are relatively short and hence do not

present problems. However, if a long time interval is specified for a stage, it is necessary to

divide this interval into sub-time intervals to closely reflect the creep effects.

Due to aging effect, a reduced creep coefficient must be used to calculate creep strain if stress

is gradually applied. Thus, the creep coefficient, φ(t, t0 ), is replaced by a reduced value which

equals χ(t, t0 ) · φ(t, t0 ), where χ(t, t0 ) is a dimensionless multiplier (smaller than 1) which is

referred to as the aging coefficient.

To explain the aging coefficient concept, the total strain resulting from an initial stress applied

at age t0 , and the subsequent continuously varying stress, Equation (3.45) is expressed in terms

of the creep coefficient, φ(t, τ ).

1 + φ(t, τ )

J(t, τ ) =

E(τ )

Z t

σ(t0 ) 1 + φ(t, τ ) ∂σ(τ )

⇒ (t) = · [1 + φ(t, t0 )] + dτ + 0 (t) (3.52)

E(t0 ) t0 E(τ ) ∂τ

Evaluating the integral of this equation for an assumed variation of stress with time and express-

ing the change of stress as follows:

t

∂σ(τ )

Z

∆σ(t) = dτ = σ(t) − σ(t0 ) (3.53)

t0 ∂τ

where σ(t) is the total stress at time t, we can rewrite Equation (3.45/3.52):

(t) = · [1 + φ(t, t0 )] + · [1 + χ(t, t0 )φ(t, t0 )] + 0 (t) (3.54)

E(t0 ) E(t0 )

Numerical values for the aging coefficient χ(t, t0 ) can be obtained from the following equation:

E(t0 ) 1

χ(t, t0 ) = − (3.55)

E(t0 ) − ER (t0 ) φ(t, t0 )

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 51

where ER (t0 ) is the relaxation function which can be calculated from the following approximate

relationship between the relaxation function and the creep compliance function (Bazant and

Kim 1979):

1 − ∆0 0.115 J(t0 + θ, t0 )

ER (t, t0 ) = − · −1 (3.56)

J(t, t0 ) J(t, t − 1) J(t, t − θ)

t = time since casting of the concrete

∆0 = correction factor (∆0 ≈ 0.008)

θ = 21 (t − t0 )

The advantage of both methods for the time-dependent analysis of structures is that they can

deal with any creep function and any prescribed history of stress.

Shrinkage

Shrinkage strain is a function of time, which is independent from the stress in the concrete

member. It is usually about one half of that for creep strain and, hence, can contribute signifi-

cantly to deflection and stress redistribution. Shrinkage strain can be expressed as follows (see

Section 3.3.4.2):

The values sh0 and βs (t, t0 ) can be obtained from the CEB-FIB 1990 model code (see Section

3.3.4.6).

Relaxation

Stress relaxation in prestressed elements is the loss of stress under conditions of constant strain.

The magnitude of this loss is dependent on both the duration of the sustained prestressing and

the ratio of the initial prestress to the yield strength of the steel. To calculate relaxation Equation

(3.39) is commonly used.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 52

3.3.4.6 Prediction of creep and shrinkage by the CEB-FIB 1990 model code

The CEB-FIP 1990 prediction model for creep and shrinkage predicts the mean behavior of a

concrete cross-section. It is valid for ordinary structural concrete (12M P a < f ck < 80M P a)

subjected to a compressive stress and exposed to mean relative humidities in the range of 40 to

100% at mean temperatures from 5◦ C to 30◦ C.

Creep strain

Creep strain is by far the most difficult to predict because it is stress originated and depends on

the entire stress history of the concrete as well as other factors.

According to Section 2.1.6.4.3 of the model code, within the range of service stresses |σ c | <

0.4 fcm (t0 ), creep is assumed to be linearly related to stress.

For a constant stress applied at t0 , the creep, cc (t, t0 ), strain at any time t is calculated as

follows:

σc (t0 )

cc (t, t0 ) = · φ(t, t0 ) (3.58)

Eci

σc (t0 ) = sustained stress

Eci = the modulus of elasticity at the age of 28 days

The total stress dependent strain, cσ (t, t0 ), may be expressed as:

1 φ(t, t0 )

cσ (t, t0 ) = σc (t0 ) · + = σc (t0 ) J(t, t0 ) (3.59)

Ec (t0 ) Eci

where: J(t, t0 ) = the creep function or creep compliance, representing the total

stress dependent strain per unit stress

Ec (t0 ) = the modulus of elasticity at the time of loading t0

(1/Ec (t0 ) represents the initial strain per unit stress t loading)

days may be calculated as:

1/2

s· 1−( t/1day

28

)

where: βcc (t) = e · Eci

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 53

In the CEB-FIP 1990 model code the principle of superposition, as mentioned above, is as-

sumed to be valid. Therefore, the constitutive equation for concrete may be expressed just like

in Equation (3.45).

φ(t, t0 ) = φ0 · βc (t − t0 ) (3.61)

βc = the coefficient to describe the development of creep

with time after loading

t0 = the age of concrete at loading (days), adjusted according

to Equation (3.68)

with:

1 − RH/100%

φRH = 1+ (3.63)

0.46 · (h/100mm)1/3

5.3

β(fcm ) = (3.64)

(fcm /10M P a)0.5

1

β(t0 ) = (3.65)

0.1 + (t0 /1day)0.2

RH = the relative humidity

h = 2Ac /u; the notional size of member (mm), where Ac is the cross

section and u is the perimeter of the member in contact with the

atmosphere

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 54

0.3

(t − t0 )/1day

βc (t − t0 ) = (3.66)

βH + (t − t0 )/1day

with:

" 18 #

RH h

βH = 150 · 1 + 1.2 · · + 250 ≤ 1500 (3.67)

100% 100mm

The effect of type of cement on the creep coefficient of concrete may be taken into account by

modifying the age of loading, t0 , according to Equation (3.68).

α

9

t0 = t0,T · + 1 ≥ 0.5 days (3.68)

2 + (t0,T /1day)1.2

(for T 6= 20◦ C, t0,T needs to be adjusted according

to Equation (2.1-87) of the CEB-FIP 1990 model code)

α = the power which depends on the type of cement

α = −1; for slowly hardening cement SL

α = 0; for normal or rapid hardening cement N and R

α = 1; for rapid hardening high strength cement RS

Shrinkage strain

In accordance with section 2.1.6.4.4 the total shrinkage strain, cs (t, ts ), may be calculated from:

βs = the coefficient to describe the development of shrinkage with time

(Equation (3.73))

t = the age of concrete (days)

ts = the age of concrete (days) at the beginning of shrinkage

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 55

with:

fcm

s (fcm ) = 160 + 10 · βsc · (9 − ) · 10−6 (3.71)

10M P a

" 3 #

RH

βRH = − 1.55 · 1 − , for 40% ≤ RH < 99% (3.72)

100%

βRH = + 0.25, for RH ≥ 99%

βsc = coefficient which depends on the type of cement

βsc = 4; for slowly hardening cements SL

βsc = 5; for normal or rapid hardening cements N and R

βsc = 8; for rapid hardening high strength cements RS

RH = the relative humidity of the ambient atmosphere

0.5

(t − ts )/1day

βs (t − ts ) = (3.73)

350 · (h/100mm)2 + (t − ts )/1day

3.3.4.7 Simulation of creep and shrinkage in the expanded unit load method

According to Janjic et al. [21] time-dependent processes can be treated as nonlinear problems

in close analogy to the procedure outlined under second-order theory and large displacements.

Thus, during the calculation of the structural system under permanent loads creep and shrinkage

can be taken into account and they can be ignored for the unit loading cases. This way it is

possible to consider creep and shrinkage together with the nonlinear behavior of the structure

without increasing the number of iterations necessary to solve the problem.

However, in spite of the above statement it can be shown that the effects of creep and shrinkage

can be treated in a linear manner. In order to predict time dependent internal forces and displace-

ments due to creep and shrinkage Pircher [39] presents a very simple finite-difference-scheme

in the time domain. Through a series of mathematical equations he shows a linear relationship

between the final internal forces and displacements and the elastic strain which initially caused

the creep.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 56

The elastic behavior of a structure is described by the following standard finite element formu-

lation:

qe = K e · a e + f e (3.74)

Z

K =e

[B]T · D · B dV (3.75)

VZ

e

f =− [B]T · D · 0 dV (3.76)

V

Ke = the stiffness matrix of element e

ae = the vector of nodal displacements

fe = the vector of nodal element forces due to creep

and shrinkage

B = the strain shape function

D = the elasticity matrix

0 = the initial strain vector due to creep and

shrinkage within the time step

The initial strain, 0 , consists of creep, shrinkage and creep based on stress increments arising

during a time step as follows:

X

0 = c,1 + sh + c,3 = φ · el + sh + c,3 = el,j · φj + sh + c,3 (3.77)

The creep factor φ and the shrinkage strain sh are defined by the CEB-FIB 1990 model code

(see above).

Determination of c,3 :

As already mentioned in Section 3.3.4.5 the stresses and corresponding elastic strain generally

do not remain constant during a time step. Assuming a linear variation of the elastic strain

(Figure 3.15) during the time step, a strain increment can be written as:

t t

el (t) = el · (1 − ) + (el + ∆el ) · (3.78)

∆t ∆t

Equation (3.78) can be rewritten using weighting factors w 1 and w2 that define the influence of

the values at the beginning and end of the time step on the average value:

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 57

Figure 3.15: Linear variation of the elastic strain during a time interval

The weighting factor, w2 , corresponds to a chosen time stepping strategy - e.g 0.5 for Crank-

Nicolson or 2/3 for Galerkin-scheme.

The contribution of the third part to the initial strain, c,3 is:

where φ is the creep factor (CEB-FIB 1990) corresponding to the age of concrete in the actual

time step.

X

0 = el,j · φj + sh + ∆el · w2 · φ (3.82)

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 58

According to the basic finite element formulation the nodal displacements are related to the total

strain as follows:

ae · B = ∆el + 0 (3.83)

X

∆el = ae · B − ( el,j · φj + sh + ∆el · w2 · φ)

X

∆el · (1 + w2 · φ) = ae · B − ( el,j · φj + sh ) (3.84)

By substituting Equation (3.83) and Equation (3.84) into the basic finite element formulation

(Equation (3.74)) the recursive formula in Equation (3.85) can be derived, which is described

in detail in [39].

1 1

Z X

e

q = · K · ae − · [B] · D · ( j · φj + sh ) dV (3.85)

1 + w2 · φ 1 + w2 · φ

Equation (3.85) shows that in order to get the solution for a single time step the same finite

element formulation as for normal ”static” analysis can be used with the exception that the elas-

ticity matrix D is replaced by 1/(1 + w2 · φ) · D. Hence, all creep and shrinkage influences

on the final distribution of internal forces and displacements are related to the elastic strain in a

linear manner.

To set up the stiffness matrix of a member it is only necessary to multiply the elastic modulus

by the factor 1/(1 + w2 · φ). To set up the load vector, one can multiply the strain values re-

lated to the individual load increments by the corresponding creep factors, add the strain due to

shrinkage and calculate the load vector.

The consequence of this linear relationship between the final internal forces and displacements

and the elastic strain is that the principles of linear superposition may be applied. Thus, the

total creep occurring during a single time step may be decomposed into single contributions.

For example the creep moment at one of the ideal moment positions (Equation (3.13)) can be

written as:

Mcreep at any location therefore consists of one part which is related to the permanent load and

the other parts are related to the unit loads. The unit loading cases are linearly coupled to the

same unknown factors X1 .....X9 as described in Section 3.3.1.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 59

As for the simple example described in Section 3.3 the basic concept of solving Equation (3.13)

for the multiplication factors, X1 , X2 ..., X9 , can now be applied. The effects of creep are sep-

arated into contributions of each time interval and then summed up. The system of Equations

(3.13) therefore remains linear when including time dependent effects. The only approximation

is that the behavior within a single time step is linear (see Figure 3.15).

3.3.5 Implementation of the expanded unit load method into finite ele-

ment software

The ”expanded unit load method”, as described above has been incorporated into the computer

program RM2004. The function to optimize the initial cable forces is called the AddCon-

method. It uses an iterative process to appropriately factor the user-defined unit loading cases

such that in combination with a fixed loading case certain constraints are achieved. The pur-

pose is to find the best solution for some given design criteria. Generally the constraints can

be applied to any ”calculation results” (deformations, stresses, forces, etc. at certain locations),

but also other constraints such as geometric parameters, material properties, etc. can be used

as design criteria (constraints). However, one has to pay attention that the assortment of the

degrees of freedom and the final target condition does not result in singularity. The design cri-

teria specified must be numerically achievable i.e. if a moment is specified as the constraint

then there must be at least one variable force on the relevant side of it such that when this is

appropriately factored and combined with the ”fixed loading case” the defined constraint can be

achieved. Furthermore, there must be as many user defined design criteria (constraints) as there

are unknown variable loading cases to solve the problem.

As the solution for the linear optimization problem is obvious in this section the iterative so-

lution for nonlinear optimization is derived. The procedure is valid for nonlinear effects that

produce a solution not to far from the linear solution [37].

The linear expression to determine the initial cable forces introduced at the beginning of Section

3.3 can be written as:

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 60

Einput = the vector of input results (i.e. desired constraints)

Econst = the vector of constant results

(i.e. deformations, stresses, forces caused by dead load)

X = the vector of unknown multiplication factors

In order to cover the nonlinear effects in Equation (3.87), the matrix A is split into a linear and

a nonlinear part:

A = ALIN + ∆A (3.88)

The nonlinear matrix ∆A may include structural nonlinearities as well as nonlinearities result-

ing from time effects and the change of the structural system over time.

The nonlinear part of matrix A multiplied by the multiplication factors can now be added to the

constant results. Thus, the constant results get quasi-constant results marked with an asterisk:

The difference of the constant parts of the results is now a measure for the nonlinear part of A.

The matrix A generally depends on the multiplication factors X i , but this dependency is not

given directly. One way of describing it mathematically is to produce changes in X and to

watch the corresponding changes in E.

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 61

∂A11 ∂A12 ... ∂A1n

∂X1 ∂X2 ... ∂Xn

δE1

∂A21 ∂A22 ... ∂A2n

δX1

δE2 ∂X1 ∂f X2 ... ∂Xn δX2

= · (3.93)

...

... ... ... ...

...

δEn δXn

∂An1 ∂An2 ... ∂Ann

∂X1 ∂X2 ... ∂Xn

Each design step results in one set of E and X. After n steps, there are (n-1) sets of δE and δX.

The linear change of matrix A can be estimated by the solution of the following Equation:

∂A11 ∂A12 ... ∂A1n

∂X1 ∂X2 ... ∂Xn

δE11 δE12 ... δE1n δX11 δX12 ... δX1n

∂A21 ∂A22 ... ∂A2n

δE21 δE22 ... δE2n ∂X1 ∂f X2 ... ∂Xn δX21 δX22 ... δX2n

= · (3.94)

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

δEn δEn2

1

... δEnn

δXn δXn2

1

... δXnn

∂An1 ∂An2 ... ∂Ann

∂X1 ∂X2 ... ∂Xn

The unknown nonlinear part of A can be computed by solving the linear system:

∂A11 ∂A12 ... ∂A1n

∂X1 ∂X2 ... ∂Xn

−1

δE11 δE12 ... δE1n δX11 δX12 ... δX1n

∂A21 ∂A22 ... ∂A2n

∂X1 ∂f X2 ... ∂Xn δE21 δE22 ... δE2n

δX21 δX22

... δX2n

= · (3.95)

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

δEn δEn2

1

... δEnn

δXn δXn2

1

... δXnn

∂An1 ∂An2 ... ∂Ann

∂X1 ∂X2 ... ∂Xn

In order to start an iterative process to solve the nonlinear problem, at first approximate val-

ues for the multiplication factors Xi are determined from a linear calculation. Based on these

starting values the calculation of construction process is repeated and the starting values are

improved . Each full calculation loop provides one additional piece of numerical information

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 62

about the nonlinear behavior. As the number of iterations grows, more and more data is avail-

able to find the proper nonlinear part of A.

Figure 3.16 shows a flowchart of the iteration procedure in the AddCon-Method. More infor-

mation about the iteration procedure can be found in [37].

Figure 3.16: Flowchart of the iterative solution for nonlinear optimization (AddCon-Method)

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 63

As already mentioned above the purpose of tensioning the stay cables with their optimum ten-

sion forces can either be to achieve a desired final geometry or a desired final moment/stress

distribution in the bridge girder and pylon. However, the optimum would be to achieve both

objectives simultaneously.

In general, especially when considering creep effects in the analysis of cable-satayed bridges,

the main intention of adjusting the cable stresses should rather be to achieve a designated mo-

ment distribution than to minimize displacements. In this case the final geometry of the bridge

can still be achieved by defining an appropriate precamber.

A structure is said to be cambered when so constructed that it assumes a desired theoretical

form for a defined condition of load. Concerning a cable-stayed bridge the defined load con-

dition is the dead load and the stay cable forces determined from the optimization of the cable

tensioning for an optimum final moment distribution. The desired theoretical form is to achieve

zero displacements at certain control points of the girder and the pylon under this condition of

load.

The precamber that ensures that the final bridge profile will coincide with the desired profile is

called a fabrication camber. It gives information about the angle between two segments that is

needed to balance the displacements of the structure.

The fabrication camber of a cable-stayed bridge can easily be determined when the deflected

shape of the structure under dead load, construction load and stay forces is known after all

deflections (elastic + time-dependent) have occurred. When zero displacement is desired, it

simply results as the curve between the up-side-down final displacements of all joints between

two segments.

Chapter 4

Programs

4.1 Introduction

The analysis of cable-stayed bridges can be performed by different finite element analysis soft-

ware. In this chapter the following three structural engineering software programs with a par-

ticular emphasis on bridge structures are introduced.:

• RM2004 (Austria)

• Larsa2000 (USA)

• MIDAS/Civil (Korea)

They all provide many features for the analysis of cable-stayed bridge structures, such as the

construction stage analysis feature which allows for changes to the structure over time, the

possibility to take the effects of geometric and material nonlinearities into account, the con-

sideration of time dependent material properties in the analysis and so on. Larsa2000 and

MIDAS/Civil are used for an example calculation of a simple cable stayed bridge in Chapter 6.

The functionality of these programs is described in detail in Section 4.2 and 4.3. Unfortunately,

the structural engineering software program RM2004 was not available for this work. However,

a brief introduction of RM2004 is given in the following.

Gesellschaft), an Austrian software development company. It is capable for the analysis and

optimization of cable tensioning of cable stayed bridges. The ”expanded unit load method”,

as described in Chapter 3.3, has been developed by TDV and fully incorporated in the analysis

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 65

program RM2004. As already mentioned in Chapter 3.3.5, the feature to optimize design pa-

rameters with RM2004 is called the AddCon-Method (Additional Constraint Method). It allows

for the consideration of the construction sequence, nonlinearities and time-dependent effects in

the optimization process.

In order to reach the ”ideal state” the AddCon-Method uses an iterative process to appropriately

factor one or several user-defined unit loading cases such that in combination with a fixed load-

ing case a set of user-defined design criteria are achieved. The user-defined constraints can be a

set of forces/moments, stresses or displacements or a combination of these at defined locations

on the bridge [37].

However, because RM2004 was not available during the process of performance of this thesis,

it is not possible to comment or judge on the reliability of this analysis feature. The analysis

programs Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil, in contrast, were present during the period of this work

and are therefore described and commented in the following.

Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil are finite-element-based analysis and design software for struc-

tural engineering that offer special features for the analysis of any bridge structure. They pro-

vide 3D analysis engines allowing the simulation of any erection procedure linking it with the

time axis in the calculation (4th dimension). Thus, for cable-stayed bridges erected by the can-

tilever construction the changes to the structure over time can be considered in the analysis.

Furthermore, Larsa2000 as well as MIDAS/Civil offer a function to consider geometric and

material nonlinear effects. Indeed, concerning the optimization of the cable tensioning strategy

both Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil are less developed analysis programs than RM2004.

4.2.1 Larsa2000

company Larsa, Inc. In this thesis the version 6.09.03 of Larsa2000/4th Dimension is used,

which is a version of Larsa2000 that has not yet been released officially. When the actual ver-

sion 6.08.76 of Larsa2000 was used with a German operating system a localization conflict

between the Larsa modules occurred. The problem was because of multiple-language support

of Larsa2000. Somehow the localization on a German computer had an effect on the input file

(time-dependent options). Instead of English, the engine replaced some of the time-dependent

options in the input file with a German equivalent. Then the Larsa engine looked for ”true”, did

not see it and ignored the time effects.

Since the main concern of this thesis is the time-dependent analysis of cable stayed bridges,

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 66

using a version of Larsa2000 which is not capable for time-dependent effects is not useful. For-

tunately, promptly after the problem appeared, the support team of Larsa, Inc. provided the

newer version 6.09.03 of Larsa 2000/4th Dimension where some major improvements in terms

of localization have been included.

Larsa was originally developed to perform nonlinear static analysis of structures that have large

displacements such as suspension and cable-stayed bridges. However, Larsa2000 has been

improved and Larsa2000/4th Dimension includes new analytical features. The key features for

the analysis and design of bridges are:

The first two features are described in detail in Section 4.3 and are used in the analysis of a

simple cable-stayed bridge in Chapter 6. The latter two are very advantageous for modeling

a real bridge structure, but they are not examined in this work. Detailed information about

Larsa2000/4th Dimension is given in the Larsa2000 Reference Manual [25] and User’s Guide

[26].

Finally it can be stated that the Larsa engine is powerful, using both tangent stiffness and the

full Newton-Raphson method with iterations.

4.2.2 MIDAS/Civil

The analysis program MIDAS/Civil has been developed by the Korean structural software de-

velopment company MIDASSoft, Inc. As well as Larsa2000 it has been used over years, and

the reliability has been established through applying them to thousands of real projects. In this

thesis the version 6.3.3 of MIDAS/Civil is used, which has been released in 2004.

MIDAS offers many special features for the analysis and design of bridges. These include:

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 67

• Composite steel bridge analysis considering section properties of pre- and post-combined

sections

or post-tensioned box bridge constructed by: incremental launching method (ILM), a

movable scaffolding system (MSS) or by free cantilever method (FCM))

Again, it is not the intention to dwell on all these features. In Section 4.3 the first three special-

ities for bridge analysis are explained and judged. For further information on the other features

please refer to MIDAS/Civil Analysis Reference [30] or the Online Manual [31].

As mentioned above, both Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil offer a construction stage analysis fea-

ture, which allows for the consideration of the continuous change of structural systems during

construction of a cable stayed bridge.

In both analysis programs changes to a structure over time are defined in a series of construc-

tion stages. Construction stages can include construction and deconstruction activities, such as

constructing or removing parts of the structure, applying loads, modifying support conditions

and stressing or slackening tendons or stay cables.

Using Larsa2000 or MIDAS/Civil a linear or nonlinear construction stage analysis can be per-

formed, which is described in detail in Section 4.3.3.

In reality the structural behaviors such as deflection and stress redistribution continue to change

during and after the construction due to varying time-dependent properties. Larsa2000 as well

as MIDAS/Civil have the ability to include time-effects on material, such as concrete creep,

shrinkage, elastic modulus variation (aging) and steel relaxation. The way of including time-

dependent effects in a construction stage analysis by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil is explained

in Section 4.3.4.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 68

4.3.1.1 Larsa2000

Before defining construction activities in Larsa, all elements in the structure that will ever be

assembled must be modeled and restraints must be set to initial conditions. When modeling

a cable-stayed bridge the elements will mainly be beam elements for the bridge deck, cable

elements for the stay cables and tendon pseudoelelements for post-tensioning of the bridge.

The beam element has three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom at each end

joint. It includes axial, shear, twisting and bending deformations. The beam element is capa-

ble of exactly representing constant axial deformation along the beam with constant torsional

shear deformation and linear bending deformations within the element. This is sufficient for

analyzing structures with loads applied at joint points. However, when subjected to axial loads,

torsional loads, lateral loads, or moments along the element, modeling these deformations re-

quires a higher order representation. The use of the fixed end forces allows these higher-order

deformations without the need of additional degrees of freedom for the beam elements. The

beam element in Larsa2000 has geometric nonlinearity and and stress-stiffening in all nonlin-

ear analysis types and includes P-Delta properties.

The cable element has only translational displacements in X, Y and Z directions at each end

and it has no rotational stiffness. Cable elements can carry axial tension force only. The cable

element can only be used in a nonlinear analysis. If during the analysis, the axial force in a cable

element becomes compressive, then the cable element is assumed to have no axial stiffness and

cannot carry any load. If a cable element is used in a linear analysis it is considered as a truss

element which can carry axial tension and compression forces. As well as the beam element,

this element has geometric nonlinearity and stress-stiffening in all nonlinear analysis types.

Tendons are used for post-tensioning members. In Larsa, they can be modeled with both short-

term losses due to friction and anchorage slip and long-term losses, such as relaxation, elastic

shortening, creep and shrinkage, etc. Tendons are pseudoelements that are modeled along side

the other geometric elements of a model. They take any arbitrary path in three dimensions. The

path is determined through control points at which a location and curvature type are specified.

The stressing of the tendons takes place during the construction process. However, in this work

only simple cable-stayed bridge structures are considered and the presence of post-tensioning

is neglected. For more information about post-tensioning with tendon elements in Larsa2000,

refer to the Larsa2000 Reference [25] and the LARSA 2000 User’s Guide [26].

After preparing the structural model, groups of elements that will be constructed or decon-

structed together need to be put into structure groups. Then, in addition to the model data, all

loads that will be applied during the construction process of the structure have to be defined.

Finally, in order to run a construction stage analysis by Larsa2000, the construction activities

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 69

during the erection of the structure need to be composed. When a staged construction analysis

begins, Larsa assumes no elements have been activated. Only elements explicitly constructed

contribute to the stiffness of the structure.

Construction activities in Larsa2000 are arranged in stages and steps. A stage represents one day

of construction, which can consist of one or more steps. Stages are labeled with a day number,

a temperature and a humidity value, which apply to all steps within the stage. A construction

step represents one set of construction activities that can be:

• Load application

• Tendon application

When a support is added to the structure it can be activated at the actual (deformed) location

of the particular joint (fixed) or at the original position defined in the input data (hoist). When

choosing the hoist command for adding an additional support a forced displacement in the di-

rection opposite to the displacement of the preceding construction stage is applied to the node.

Thus, additional internal stresses resulting from this forced displacement are introduced to the

structure.

After all activities during the construction of a cable-stayed bridge are set up in construction

stages/steps, a construction stage analysis of the structure can be performed.

4.3.1.2 MIDAS/Civil

Similar to the definition of construction stages by Larsa2000, before defining construction ac-

tivities a structural model including all elements, boundary conditions and loads that will ever

be applied need to be prepared. The main element types used in the staged construction analysis

of a cable stayed bridge are the same as explained above, but MIDAS/Civil does not consider

tendons as independent elements. However, MIDAS/Civil also offers a feature for pre- or post-

tensioning members that allows for the consideration of prestress losses, etc. More information

on the prestressed concrete analysis can be found in the MIDAS/Civil Analysis Reference [30]

or in the Online Manual [31].

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 70

Each node of a MIDAS/Civil beam element retains six degrees of freedom (3 translational + 3

rotational). The formulation of the beam element is founded on the Timoshenko Beam Theory

taking into account the stiffness effects of tension/compression, shear, bending and torsional

deformations.

The cable element in MIDAS/Civil is a tension-only, three dimensional line element, which is

capable of transmitting axial tension force only. As already mentioned in Chapter 3.3.3 a ca-

ble element reflects the change in stiffness varying with internal tension forces. In a geometric

nonlinear analysis, the tangent stiffness of a cable element is calculated considering a catenary

element which can correctly model the geometric change of the cable at any tension level. This

procedure is explained in detail in Chapter 3.3.3. When performing a linear analysis, the cable

element is automatically transformed into an equivalent truss element with the stiffness result-

ing from cable sag calculated by the ”Ernst formula” given in Equation (3.18).

After the preparation of the model and loading data Structure, Boundary and Load Groups that

will be constructed or applied together need to be defined. Each construction stage in MI-

DAS/Civil is then composed of the activation or deactivation of one or more of those groups.

In contrast to construction stages in Larsa2000, a construction stage in MIDAS/Civil represents

a number of days that needs to be specified by the user. The construction or deconstruction

of geometry and boundary conditions always takes place at the first day of the particular con-

struction stage and then remains unchanged, whereas loadings may be applied at the first, last

or any intermediate day and may change within the stage. However, additional construction

steps within the stage need to be defined if loadings shall be applied at specific days during the

runtime of the stage.

The actual date of a particular construction stage in MIDAS/Civil is determined by the sum

of the duration of the preceding stages. The temperature and relative humidity is not defined

for the construction stages, but for the entire construction stage analysis which applies to all

construction stages. Hence, changes in temperature and relative humidity during a construction

process can not be considered in a construction stage analysis by MIDAS/Civil.

When a boundary is added in MIDAS/Civil similar to Larsa2000 the user has the choice of

activating this boundary condition at the original (undeformed) location or at the deformed

location of the particular node. The influence on the internal forces are the same as explained

above.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 71

The problem of a discontinuity at the joints between two segments (construction stages) in a

forward analysis has already been briefly discussed in Chapter 3.2.4.2. Generally, when new

segments are activated the joints enter at the location that was initially given to them in the input

data. This way a displacement (δz , δx and θz ) is automatically introduced in the structure. As

already mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4.2, one way to avoid these discontinuities is to rather apply

the new segments tangentially than straight forward. Larsa2000 as well as MIDAS/Civil offer a

function, which calculates the real displacement as well as the rotational angle for the elements

installed in the following stage.

In MIDAS/Civil using the option initial tangent displacement for erected structures for the con-

struction stage analysis the real displacement may be calculated for all members or for specific

groups only. If this option is not chosen all segments will be applied straight forward instead of

tangentially and a discontinuity is introduced at the joints between the segments.

Larsa2000 offers a choice of the method of construction for each construction activity, i.e. for

each construction step. It allows for three different methods of segmental construction updating

the locations of all joints becoming active in the step. In addition to the straight forward and

tangential activation of segments it also offer the option to install the next segment by shifting

the end node down to match the translational displacement of the start node. This way the

segment remains horizontal as it was initially drawn.

The example below shows the difference between the special segmental construction methods

used in Larsa2000. It is a simple segmental bridge built in stages. In the first stage, only the

left segment is activated. After the application of loads, the segment deforms. Then the second

segment is installed. Figure 4.1 shows the behavior of the two segments when using standard,

hinged or matched casting of segments.

• Standard cast

The center node is displaced, but the right node is left unchanged because inactive joints

are ignored in the analysis. As a result, when the next segment is constructed, the seg-

ments form an angle, even though there was no angle when the segments were initially

modeled.

• Hinged cast

The second segment is constructed by shifting the end node down to match the transla-

tional displacement of the center node.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 72

• Matched cast

The second segment is constructed by shifting the end node down to match the angular

displacement of the center node, i.e. the segment is installed tangentially.

In addition to these three methods joints sometimes need to become active in a location relative

to the deformed structure of the model, rather than in an exact position known ahead of time. In

Larsa2000 displacement initializations may be defined that specify how to place a joint relative

to the deformed location of other joints. They are explained in more detail in the Larsa2000

Staged Construction Analysis Manual [27].

Larsa2000 as well as MIDAS/Civil offer to take into account structural nonlinear behavior in the

construction stage analysis. The nonlinearity considered in a nonlinear construction stage anal-

ysis can be classified as material nonlinearity or as geometric nonlinearity. Material nonlinearity

is associated with changes in material properties: inelastic behavior. Geometric nonlinearity is

associated with changes in configuration, such as P-Delta effects and large deflections of cable-

stayed bridges.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 73

In principle, the staged construction analysis by Larsa2000 is a form of nonlinear static analysis

that retains the state of the structure from step to step. Performing a linear construction stage

analysis is not possible when using Larsa2000. This nonlinear analysis automatically takes

into account material nonlinearity (if elements with nonlinear properties are used) and stress-

stiffening effects such as that encountered when a cable is stressed in tension or in compression

and offers the choice whether geometric nonlinearity shall be included in the analysis. The

nonlinear construction stage analysis is performed by iteratively solving for the displacements

of a structure, stopping when convergence criteria have been met.

Deformations can significantly alter the location or distribution of loads. Therefore, equilibrium

equations in Larsa2000 are written with respect to the deformed geometry, which is not known

in advance. One seeks a displacement state in which the deformed structure is in equilibrium

with the loads applied to it.

Geometric nonlinearity in Larsa2000 includes both second-order theory and large displacement

effects. The material nonlinearities that can be considered in Larsa2000 include the inelastic

beam element, the nonlinear elastic and nonlinear inelastic springs, gap and hook elements,

foundation springs with nonlinear elastic or inelastic material behavior, etc.

When geometric nonlinearity is included in the nonlinear construction stage analysis of a cable-

stayed bridge, Larsa2000 takes into consideration:

• Large displacements (The stiffness matrices of the elements are based on deformed ge-

ometry)

• Second-order theory

However, Larsa2000 does not consider the sag effect of cable elements. The only possibility to

capture the sag effects is to divide the cables into a number of elements. If only one element

per cable is used, its tension stiffness is similar to the equivalent truss element.

In a nonlinear analysis, the equilibrium equations are formulated with respect to the deformed

geometry of the structure, which is not known in advance and will change with the applied

loads. The stiffness matrix depends on the unknown displacements. The result is a set of

nonlinear simultaneous equations. It is necessary to employ an iterative technique to obtain a

solution in nonlinear analysis. An iterative scheme based on Newton-Raphson Method has been

implemented in Larsa2000.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 74

The nonlinear analysis by MIDAS/Civil can be classified in three main categories. First, mate-

rial nonlinear behaviors are encountered when relatively big loadings are applied to a structure

thereby resulting in high stresses in the range of nonlinear stress-strain relationship. Second, a

geometric nonlinear analysis including second-order theory and large displacement effects and

third, boundary nonlinearity of a load-displacement relationship that may occur when boundary

conditions change with structural deformations due to external loads.

In principle, using MIDAS/Civil a construction stage analysis is a linear static analysis. How-

ever, to include geometric nonlinear behavior the analysis option include non-linear analysis

must be activated. If this option is checked in a construction stage analysis of a cable-stayed

bridge, MIDAS/Civil considers large displacement effects as well as the nonlinear behavior of

cable elements including cable sag, but P-delta analysis has not been added to the program yet.

Similar to Larsa2000 the iterative technique to obtain a solution in a geometric nonlinear anal-

ysis is based on Newton-Raphson Method, which is explained in detail in the MIDAS/Civil

Analysis Reference [30].

Deflections and stress redistributions continue to change during and after the construction of

cable-stayed bridges due to varying time-dependent properties, such as concrete creep, shrink-

age, modulus of elasticity (aging) and tendon relaxation. The importance of the consideration of

time-dependent material behavior in the analysis and design of cable-stayed bridges has already

been explained in Chapter 3. Both Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil allow for performing a time-

dependent construction stage analysis taking into account different time effects on materials.

The procedure in the different analysis programs is explained in detail in the following.

Concrete is subject to creep and shrinkage. Steel is subject to relaxation. These changes and

elastic modulus variation are accounted for in Larsa’s time-dependent staged construction anal-

ysis.

Time-dependent staged construction analysis in Larsa2000 requires time, temperature, and hu-

midity conditions, that are defined for all construction stages (see section 4.3.1.1). The day of

a particular construction stage is used for computing time-effects on materials. Concrete creep

and shrinkage, tendon relaxation and the time-effect on elastic modulus in Larsa2000 are based

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 75

on the prediction models and equations from CEB-FIP 1990 model code and CEB-FIP 1978

model code. They can be included in the analysis separately or in combination. Which effects

to include is specified by the user.

When the CEB-FIP 1990 model code is chosen for a time-dependent staged construction anal-

ysis, the following input values must be specified to allow Larsa2000 to determine creep and

shrinkage behavior and the time-effect on the elastic modulus of concrete:

• Environmental conditions (relative humidity and temperature which is defined for each

construction stage)

• Compressive strength of concrete at day 28 (Larsa requires the mean compressive strength,

fcm , instead of the characteristic compressive strength, fck )

• Casting day of all members (the age of a member when constructed is determined by

subtracting the casting day from the day of construction set for the construction stage

being analyzed)

Based on these input parameters together with the loading age (day of load application sub-

tracted by casting day) and actual time defined in the construction stages, Larsa2000 automati-

cally computes the creep and shrinkage coefficients.

In addition to those input parameters that allow for the computation of creep, shrinkage and

variation of elastic modulus with time by built-in equations of the CEB-FIB 1990 model code,

Larsa2000 requires the following time-dependent material curves in order to take steel relax-

ation into account :

• Stress/GUTS vs. Relaxation Curve (Relaxation losses for different stress levels in the

tendon. Stress/GUTS is the stress in the tendon divided by the guaranteed ultimate tensile

strength)

• Time vs. Relaxation Curve (Time versus Relaxation is a function corresponding to how

relaxation varies over time)

Relaxation is derived from the product of the coefficients from the Stress/GUTS vs. Relaxation

and Time vs. Relaxation curves. The coefficients are the values of the curves with time being

the number of days since the tendon was stressed.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 76

MIDAS/Civil offers the option of a time-dependent construction stage analysis considering the

following time effects on materials:

The creep and shrinkage effects as well as the compressive strength gain properties of concrete

in MIDAS/Civil can be defined by choosing one of the following model codes for the prediction

of creep and shrinkage:

• CEB-FIB 1990

Alternatively, test data may also be directly entered into the program.

When the CEB-FIB 1990 model code is selected for the determination of creep and shrinkage

the following input parameters are required:

• Compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days (MIDAS requires the characteristic

compressive strength, fck )

• Type of cement (slow hardening, normal or rapid hardening, rapid hardening high strength)

MIDAS/Civil does not require the input of a temperature for a time-dependent construction

stage analysis so that the effect of elevated or reduced temperatures on the maturity of concrete

can not be taken into account in the calculation of the creep coefficient φ. This may lead to

incorrect results when the temperature is very low or extremely high. However, based on these

input parameters MIDAS/Civil automatically calculates the creep coefficients.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 77

The increase of compressive strength with time is calculated based on the concrete compressive

strength at 28 days and the type of cement.

In order to consider prestress losses due to tendon relaxation MIDAS/Civil adopts the widely

used formula for the determination of relaxation at any time t given in Equation (3.39).

When running a staged construction analysis by Larsa2000 different analysis options may be

selected. First the user needs to choose whether a standard or time-dependent analysis shall

be performed. In a standard analysis time effects on materials are ignored and in the time-

dependent type they are included.

Then the user can choose which construction stages are to be analyzed. The analysis can only

pick up from any stage up to where it last left off, or from the start. A starting and ending

construction stage are defined.

Because the staged construction analysis in Larsa2000 is a derivative of the nonlinear static

analysis, convergence criteria for the iterative solution are specified by the user. Equilibrium

iterations at a given load level can cease when the result is ”close enough” according to one or

more criteria. Two criteria used in Larsa are that the unbalanced force be a small fraction of

the total applied force in the current load level and that the current displacement increment be

a small fraction of the displacement increment. The convergence criteria are specified by the

user as the displacement tolerance, force tolerance and maximum number of iterations. The

iterative analysis continues until all degrees of freedom in the model satisfy displacement and

force tolerance criteria within the maximum number of iterations.

If the solution is not convergent for a load step, the analysis will continue if there are additional

load steps and the structure is not unstable. Larsa carries the unbalanced forces into the next

load step and a convergent solution may be obtained in the next load step. This problem can

usually be avoided by either using less restrictive error ratios or by increasing the maximum

number of iterations.

Finally, the user needs to specify whether geometric nonlinearity (large displacement and P-

Delta effects) will be included in the analysis.

When a time-dependent staged construction analysis is chosen, in addition to these options, the

time-dependent analysis options need to be chosen. It has to be selected which prediction code

for creep and shrinkage shall be used in the analysis and which time effects on materials shall

be considered.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 78

As well as in Larsa2000 different analysis options may be selected when running a staged

construction analysis by MIDAS/Civil. In contrast to Larsa, the construction stage analysis in

MIDAS is generally performed as a linear analysis. Hence, no convergence criteria have to be

defined when time-dependent effects and nonlinearities are not considered.

MIDAS/Civil offers to include time-dependent effects or nonlinear analysis in a construction

stage analysis. However, in the current version of MIDAS/Civil, nonlinear and time-dependent

effects cannot be considered simultaneously.

If the option include time-dependent effects is checked, the user may select the time-dependent

material properties that shall be included in the analysis. Furthermore, convergence criteria for

creep iteration need to be defined when creep is taken into account. MIDAS requires a maxi-

mum number of iterations and a tolerance for convergence. Additionally, a number of internal

time steps and a number of automatic time step generation for large time gap may be specified.

The first number is used to divide a construction stage to create internal steps for considering

creep and the second one is used to divide a construction stage to create internal steps when the

duration of the construction stage is too long.

If include nonlinear analysis is checked on the analysis option, MIDAS/Civil also requires

information for the iteration procedure. In order to perform a Newton-Raphson iteration the

maximum number of iterations as well as convergence criteria need to be defined. In MIDAS

up to three convergence criteria can be used that are energy, displacement and force tolerance.

The solution procedure is similar to the method explained above.

As a second option, the user can choose which construction stages are to be analyzed. In contrast

to Larsa2000, the analysis always starts from the first stage and only the ending construction

stage is defined.

Two additional options in MIDAS/Civil are the definition of the method of applying pretension

forces of cable elements and the choice whether the initial tangent displacement for erected

structures option shall be included in the analysis.

Regarding the pretension forces of cable elements, the choice is to either apply the pretension

forces as internal or as external forces. If the initial pretension forces are applied as internal

forces, the forces in the cable elements become reduced due to the deformation of the support

structure based on its stiffness. If the initial pretension forces are applied as external forces,

the forces are treated as external loads to the support structure at the construction stage of pre-

tensioning; hence the forces in the cable elements remain unchanged as the initial pretension

force at the corresponding construction stage.

When choosing to apply the pretension forces of cable elements as external loads, an additional

choice has to be made; MIDAS/Civil offers to add external forces to already existing pretension

forces of cable elements or to replace them with the applied external force.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 79

In Larsa such an option is not needed. The problem is avoided by modeling the load of cables

as pre-tensioning (internal force) or post-tensioning (external force).

Concerning the initial tangent displacement for erected structures function, one is referred to

Section 4.3.2, where this option is explained in detail.

In addition to these basic options, there are some more options regarding the output of the

results that are not be discussed here. For further information it is referred to the MIDAS/Civil

Online Manual [31].

In contrast to RM2004, both Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil do not offer a feature which allows

for the optimization of stay cable forces considering the construction sequence, time-dependent

effects and nonlinearities. However, MIDAS/Civil provides a function called the unknown load

factor function, which is capable to calculate unknown loading conditions necessary to satisfy

a given design requirement in a linear analysis.

The unknown load factor function likewise the AddCon-Method in RM2004 can be used to

calculate optimal load factors that satisfy specific constraints of a structure. The function de-

termines superposition factors for previously calculated load cases to obtain a prescribed state

in the structure by combining these load cases. It can be used when performing a simple linear

analysis, but also for construction stage analyses.

In case of a linear analysis, a load combination containing the applied external loads and user

defined unit loads is defined. The load cases of this combination for which the unknown load

factors are to be obtained are then selected and certain constraints (displacement, internal forces,

etc.) are defined. Based on these input data the program computes the influence of all load case

on the objectives and calculates unknown load factors for the unit loads that satisfy the require-

ments. The output of the program are the calculated results of the unknown load factors and the

corresponding influence matrix.

In case of a construction stage analysis, the definition of load combinations is not necessary.

All ”unit loads” that are applied during the construction process can be used as load cases for

which the unknown load factors are to be obtained. They can be chosen by simply selecting the

construction step at which the unit loads have been activated.

Similar to the linear analysis, constraint conditions that are to be satisfied are specified. They

can be defined for an arbitrary construction stage. In most cases this will be the final construc-

tion stage, but it can also be any other stage. When performing a construction stage analysis,

MIDAS/Civil computes the influence of the activities in the different construction steps (load

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 80

application, support jacking, etc.) on the objectives in the ”final” construction stage and deter-

mines the unknown load factors of the ”unit activities” that satisfy the constraint conditions. In

this case at least the construction sequence is considered in the optimization procedure. How-

ever, time-dependent effects and nonlinearities can not be taken into account in the unknown

load factor calculation by MIDAS/Civil.

For constraint conditions to be satisfied, in both cases equality and inequality conditions are

permitted. In the first case MIDAS searches for a condition where the optimized constraint is

equal to an entered constraint and in the latter a upper and lower bound for the constraint is

specified by the user.

The equality conditions are solved using linear algebraic equations. If the numbers of the un-

known loads and equations are equal, the solution can be directly obtained by solving a linear

equation system.

If a solution satisfying inequality conditions is obtained, numerous solutions to the unknown

loads exist depending on the constraints imposed to the inequality conditions. MIDAS/Civil

finds a solution to inequality conditions, which uses variables that minimizes the given object

functions. MIDAS/Civil allows to select the sum of the absolute values, the sum of the squares

and the maximum of the absolute values of variables for the object functions. Weight factors

can be assigned to specific variables to control their relative importance, and the effective ranges

of the variables can be specified.

The general procedures of the determination of initial cable forces by the unknown load factor

function in a linear and a construction stage analysis are illustrated in Figures 4.2 and 4.3.

Figure 4.2: Flowchart for the calculation of initial cable forces in a linear analysis

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 81

Figure 4.3: Flowchart for the calculation of initial cable forces in a construction stage analysis

technique. Since the desired conditions may not have a solution depending on the constraints,

selection of appropriate design conditions and object functions are very important.

In contrast to MIDAS/Civil, Larsa2000 does not offer a function to automatically calculate un-

known loading conditions that satisfy user defined constraints. However, the influence matrix,

which was briefly introduced, can also be determined from an analysis by Larsa2000 and then

a linear algebraic equation can be solved to determine the unknown load factors.

The influence matrix in Larsa2000 can be assembled by simply applying each unit pretension

force separately to the structure, and compute the influence on the deformations or bending

moments, respectively, at selected control points. These control points and the type of influence

(deformation, bending moment, etc.) are the locations and type of design criteria that are re-

stricted in the optimization process. The influence matrix may contain influences on deflections

or bending moments only, but also a combination of both. Thus, for instance, restrictions can

be made to the bending moments along the girder and to the deflection at the top of the pylon at

the same time.

Computing the influence of all unit pretension forces to all objectives a n x m influence matrix

results, where n is the number of unit pretension forces and m is the number of constraints. If

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 82

the number of unit pretension force and the number of objectives is equal, the cable tension

forces can be calculated by solving a linear equation.

The described method to determine the influence matrix can be applied to a linear, but also

to a construction stage analysis. In case of a staged construction analysis the unit pretension

forces are applied at the time of installation and the influences on the objectives in the ”final”

construction stage are computed.

There is a general belief that the consideration of creep is a nonlinear problem. However, it

was shown in Chapter 3.3.4.7 that the effects of creep and shrinkage can be treated in a linear

manner. As a consequence, the principles of linear superposition may still be applied when

considering time-dependent material behavior in the optimization process.

It was shown that the total creep occurring during a single time step may be decomposed into

single contributions. The creep deformation or creep moment at any location consists of one

part which is related to the permanent load and the other parts are related to the unit loads. The

unit loading cases are linearly coupled to the same unknown factors as for the linear static or

linear construction stage analysis, respectively.

Due to this fact an influence matrix containing the effects of creep and shrinkage can be ob-

tained in a similar manner as described above. Instead of a linear construction stage analysis, a

time-dependent construction stage analysis is performed. The unit pretension forces are applied

at the time of installation and the influences on the objectives in the final construction stage

are computed. Needless to say, not only the the influence matrix but also the moments and

displacements due to dead load change compared to the linear construction stage analysis.

Because in the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil time-dependent effects can not

be considered, a similar procedure as described for Larsa2000 need to be used in MIDAS/Civil

when considering time-dependent material behavior.

The above described method to compute an optimum tensioning strategy considering the con-

struction sequence as well as time-dependent material behavior is adopted in the analysis of a

simple model of a cable stayed bridge in Chapter 6. On the basis of this example the procedure

is described in detail and the results determined by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civi are compared

and evaluated.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 83

ysis by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil

As already mentioned, both Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil offer a function to consider creep and

shrinkage in a construction stage analysis. In the following part of this thesis the application

of these functions in the calculation of a simple model of a bridge structure shall be verified.

Therefore, in both analysis programs the CEB-FIB 1990 model code for prediction of creep and

shrinkage is chosen to consider the time effects on materials. In order to control the computer

calculations the results are then compared to hand calculations that are also based on the CEB-

FIB 1990 model code and should, therefore, yield similar results.

Figure 4.4 illustrates the construction sequence of a simplified model of a two span bridge struc-

ture erected by one-sided free cantilevering. In the first stage the first part of the bridge deck

is erected and the self weight is applied. Then the derrick crane is installed and the load of

segment 2 is applied. In stage 3 the next segment is placed and loaded. In the final fourth

construction stage the derrick crane is removed from the structure. The material, section and

loading data for the verification model are given in Table 4.1 to 4.3.

Figure 4.4: Construction sequence of the verification model for creep and shrinkage

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 84

Table 4.1: Material data for the verification model for creep and shrinkage

Classification Modulus of Elasticity Poisson’s Ratio Compressive Strength at

E (kN/m2 ) age of 28 days fck (kN/m2 )

Concrete 3.5034 · 107 0.3 35, 000

Table 4.2: Section data for the verification model for creep and shrinkage

Classification Cross-sectional Area Moment of Inertia Perimeter

(m2 ) (m4 ) (m)

Deck 0.4000 0.1 4.00

Classification Load

Self Weight (Deck) 10 kN/m

Derrick crane 50 kN

A linear construction stage analysis is performed by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil. The resulting

joint deflections are almost identical in both analysis programs. Table 4.4 shows the resulting

deflections in all construction stages. The corresponding internal forces and moments are also

similar for both analyses, but they are not illustrated here.

Vertical deflection [mm]

Construction Stage Larsa2000 MIDAS/Civil

Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 2 Joint 3

CS01 −3.5680 - −3.5680 -

CS02 −24.9757 - −24.9757 -

CS03 −24.9757 −68.9805 −24.9757 −68.9806

CS04 −20.2184 −57.0873 −20.2185 −57.0874

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 85

already mentioned above in both cases the CEB-FIB 1990 model code is chosen as the basis

for the definition of the time dependent parameters. In addition to the section and material

data given in Table 4.1 and 4.2 a relative humidity of 70% and a normal hardening cement are

assumed.

In this section only time-dependent effects due to creep are considered. Shrinkage strain as well

as the increase of the modulus of elasticity of concrete with time (aging) are neglected.

Since the structure is statically determinate the internal forces and moments do not change due

to the effects of creep. They stay the same as for the linear analysis. The vertical deformation

at joint 2 and 3 at the end of construction stage CS01 to CS04 are given in Table 4.5.

In contrast to the linear calculation there are small differences in the results from the analysis by

Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil. These deviations are summarized and evaluated in comparison

with a hand calculation in Section 4.4.4.

Vertical deflection [mm]

Construction Stage Larsa2000 MIDAS/Civil

Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 2 Joint 3

CS01 −3.5680 - −3.5680 -

CS02 −28.2272 - −27.4685 -

CS03 −34.7837 −94.5777 −34.0452 −92.5005

CS04 −31.6030 −88.7385 −30.5879 −85.0733

In order to check the results of the construction stage analyses by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil

a simple hand calculation of the structure is performed.

The structural system in all four construction stages is a cantilever under different load combi-

nations. In the first construction stage the cantilever is loaded by a uniform load in the amount

of the self weight of the bridge deck. In the second phase an additional external concentrated

load and an external moment are applied (concentrated load = weight of segment 2 + derrick

crane, moment = moment caused by weight of segment 2). In the third stage no changes occur

to the first part of the bridge deck. The only difference is, that the second segment is installed

and loaded by a uniform load. This uniform load produces the same concentrated load and

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 86

bending moment at joint 2 as in stage 2. The second half of the structure can be considered as

a cantilever under a uniform load rigidly fixed to the first part. In the final fourth construction

stage the derrick crane is removed, which corresponds to an upward load at joint 2.

Concerning the vertical deflections and joint rotations the structural systems and corresponding

expressions for the deflection and rotation of Figure 4.5 can be taken to determine the theoretical

deformation [44].

wL3 P L2

Figure 4.5 a): θel (w) = Figure 4.5 b): θel (P ) =

6EI 2EI

wL4 P L3

δel,z (w) = δel,z (P ) =

8EI 3EI

ML

Figure 4.5 c): θel (M ) =

EI

M L2

δel,z (M ) = (4.1)

2EI

Using these expressions, the elastic vertical deflections and rotations of the structure due to the

activities in the construction stages CS01 to CS04 can be calculated. First only element 1 is

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 87

considered and the elastic deformations of joint two are determined. Table 4.6 shows the values

separated into deflections and rotations due to the different activities. In Table 4.7 the total

elastic deformation of joint 2 and the corresponding initial deformation of joint 3 are given.

+Self Weight Seg 1 + Load of Segment 2 +/- Derrick crane

δel [mm] θel [10−4 ] δel [mm] θel [10−4 ] δel [mm] θel [10−4 ]

CS01: −3.5680 −4.7573 - - - -

CS02: - - −16.6505 −28.5437 −4.7573 −7.1359

CS03: - - - - - -

CS04: - - - - +4.7573 +7.1359

The total elastic deformation of joint 2 in a given construction stage is the sum of the defor-

mations of the actual and all previous construction stages. Through the deformation of the first

segment (Joint 2) also the second segment (Joint 3) experiences an initial deformation. This

initial deformation can be calculated by Equation (4.2) and is, in addition to the total elastic

deformation of joint 2, given in Table 4.7.

θel (Joint 3) = θel (Joint 2) (4.2)

Table 4.7: Total elastic deformation of joint 2 and initial elastic deformation of joint 3

Total elastic deformation of joint 2 Initial elastic deformation of joint 3

δel [mm] θel [10−4 ] δel [mm] θel [10−4 ]

CS01: −3.5680 −4.757 - -

CS02: −24.9757 −40.4369 - -

CS03: −24.9757 −40.4369 −65.4126 −40.4369

CS04: −20.2185 −33.3010 −53.5194 −33.3010

Considering the second element of the structure, the total vertical deflections and rotations of

joint 3 can be determined. The only load that is to be applied to this element is the uniformly

distributed self weight of segment 2. The deformation due to all other activities is considered

in the initial deformation of joint 3. The total deflections and rotations of joint 3 are the sum of

the initial deformations and the deformations due to the construction of segment 2.

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 88

Total elastic deformation Initial elastic deformation + Self Weight Seg 2

δel [mm] θel [10−4 ] δel [mm] θel [10−4 ] δel [mm] θel [10−4 ]

CS01: - - - - - -

CS02: - - - - - -

CS03: −68.9806 −45.1942 −65.4126 −40.4369 −3.5680 −4.7573

CS04: −57.0874 −38.0583 −53.5194 −33.3010 - -

Creep deformation

The creep deformation is determined by multiplying the elastic deformation by the creep co-

efficient, φ. The creep coefficients for the different loading ages, t 0i , are calculated from the

formulas given in the CEB-FIB 1990 model code using the same input parameters as for the

computer calculation. The detailed procedure is described in Chapter 3.3.4.6. The resulting

creep factors, φ, are given in Table 4.9.

t0,1 = 10 days t0,2 = 20 days t0,3 = 21-16 days

+ SW Segment 1 +Load of Seg 2/+Derrick + SW Segment 2

CS01: φ(t0,i , 10) 0 0 0

CS02: φ(t0,i , 20) 0.6834 0 0

CS03: φ(t0,i , 21) 0.7029 0.3019 0

CS04: φ(t0,i , 22) 0.7211 0.3715 φ(t0,3 , 22 − 16) = 0.2991

The sum of the elastic and creep deformation of joint 2 due to the activities in the construction

stages CS01 to CS04 can be calculated by multiplying the different elastic deformation given

in Table 4.6 by the factor (1 + φ). The results are shown in the following Table:

+Self Weight Seg 1 + Load of Segment 2 +/- Derrick crane

δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ] δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ] δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ]

CS01: −3.5680 −4.7573 - - - -

CS02: −6.0064 −8.0085 −16.6505 −28.5437 −4.7573 −7.1359

CS03: −6.0758 −8.1011 −21.6776 −37.1617 −6.1936 −9.2904

CS04: −6.1408 −8.1877 −22.8363 −39.1480 −1.7674 −2.6511

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 89

From these values the total deformation of joint 2 in a given construction stage can be calculated

by summing up the values of the particular row. Then initial deformation of joint 3 (including

elastic and creep deformation) can be calculated by the same procedure as explained above. The

results are given in Table 4.11.

Total deformation of joint 2 Initial deformation of joint 3

δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ] δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ]

CS01: −3.5680 −4.757 - -

CS02: −27.4142 −43.6881 - -

CS03: −33.9470 −54.5531 −88.5002 −54.5531

CS04: −30.7445 −49.9868 −80.7313 −49.9868

As explained above the total deformation of joint 3 is determined by adding the initial deforma-

tion of joint 3 and the deformation due to the self weight of segment 2.

Total elastic deformation Initial elastic deformation + Self Weight Seg 2

δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ] δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ] δel+c [mm] θel+c [10−4 ]

CS01: - - - - - -

CS02: - - - - - -

CS03: −92.0681 −59.3104 −88.5002 −54.5531 −3.5680 −4.7573

CS04: −85.6974 −56.6083 −80.7313 −49.9868 −4.6353 −6.1804

Thus, the vertical deflections at joint 2 and 3 including elastic and creep deformation result to:

Vertical deflection [mm]

Construction Stage Hand Calculations

Joint 2 Joint 3

CS01 −3.5680 -

CS02 −27.4142 -

CS03 −33.9470 −92.0681

CS04 −30.7445 −85.6974

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 90

formed by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil. Shrinkage strain likewise creep strain is defined by

choosing the CEB-FIB 1990 model code. The input parameter equate those used in section

4.4.2. Since the considered verification example is statically determinate, shrinkage strain only

affects the axial deformation of the structure. The axial deflection due to shrinkage of joint 2

and 3 is given in Table 4.14.

Horizontal deformation [mm]

Construction Stage Larsa2000 MIDAS/Civil

Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 2 Joint 3

CS01 0 - 0 -

CS02 −0.1569 - −0.1569 -

CS03 −0.1695 −0.1695 −0.1695 −0.1695

CS04 −0.1817 −0.2158 −0.1817 −0.2158

Because the horizontal deflection due to shrinkage of joint 2 and 3 determined by Larsa2000

and MIDAS/Civil has the same magnitude in all construction stages, in this case no further

hand calculation is performed. The feature of including shrinkage effects in a construction

stage analysis is considered to be fully functional in both analysis programs.

From the results in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 it can be seen that the structural deformations due

to shrinkage are absolutely the same for the analysis by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil, whereas

for the creep deformation discrepancies occurred in both computer simulations. In order to dis-

cover the reason for these variations, Table 4.15 once again shows the sum of the elastic and

creep deformation of joint 2 and 3 determined by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil in comparison

with the results from the hand calculation in Section 4.4.2.2.

From Table 4.15 it is visible that the MIDAS results are very close to the results from the

hand calculation. Only very small deviations of less than 1% occur, which is tolerable for

the analysis. The difference between the theoretical deformations and the values calculated by

Larsa2000, on the other hand, show larger discrepancies. The reason for this inaccurateness

can be explained considering a simple cantilever under a uniform unit load as an example. The

elastic deformation is given by Equation (4.3).

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 91

Vertical deflection [mm]

Larsa2000 MIDAS/Civil Hand Calculations

Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 2 Joint 3

CS01 −3.5680 - −3.5680 - −3.5680 -

CS02 −28.2272 - −27.4685 - −27.4142 -

CS03 −34.7837 −94.5777 −34.0452 −92.5005 −33.9470 −92.0681

CS04 −31.6030 −88.7385 −30.5879 −85.0733 −30.7445 −85.6974

Figure 4.6 a) shows the qualitative curvature/bending moment diagram of the cantilever. If the

structure is modeled by one single element it seems that Larsa2000 takes the curvature at both

ends of the element and assumes a linear distribution over the element (Figure 4.6 b)).

In general, creep of concrete is taken into account by multiplying the elastic strain by the creep

coefficient φ, which is similar to multiplying the curvature, Ψ, by the creep coefficient. Do-

ing so the theoretical curvature of the element due to creep is shown in Figure 4.7 a) and the

creep curvature calculated by Larsa2000 is shown in Figure 4.7 b). The additional deflections

resulting from these creep curvature distributions are given in Equations (4.4) and (4.5).

Figure 4.7: Creep curvature diagram of a cantilever under a uniform unit load

CHAPTER 4. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMS 92

L4

Elastic deflection: δel = (4.3)

8EI

L4

Theoretical creep deflection (Figure 4.7 a)): δc = φ· (4.4)

8EI

L4

Creep deflection by Larsa2000 (Figure 4.7 b)): δc = φ· (4.5)

6EI

The sum of the elastic and creep deflection results to:

a) Theoretical Calculation:

L4 L4 L4

δel + δc = +φ· = (1 + φ) · = (1 + φ) · δel (4.6)

8EI 8EI 8EI

4 4 4

L L L

δel + δc = +φ· = (1 + 4/3 · φ) · = (1 + 4/3 · φ) · δel (4.8)

8EI 6EI 8EI

Equations (4.6) and (4.8) show a clear difference between the theoretical result and the Larsa2000

result when the cantilever is modeled by one element. For different structural systems and load

cases the magnitude of this error in the determination of creep effects varies depending on the

theoretical distribution of the curvature along the element. The closer the theoretical curvature

distribution to a linear distribution, the more exact are the Larsa results. However, this error

can be reduced by refining the element size. This way the distribution of the curvature in the

Larsa2000 analysis converges to the theoretical curvature diagram and the creep deformation

gets more exact.

When modeling the two segments of the verification example with 10 instead of 1 element, the

creep deflections change and the sum of the elastic and creep deformation results to the values

shown in Table 4.16. Now they are very close to the deflections determined by the hand calcu-

lations. Consequently, in order to perform a proper time-dependent analysis by Larsa2000 the

element sizes of a structure need to be sufficiently small.

Vertical deflection [mm]

Larsa2000 Hand Calculations

Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 2 Joint 3

CS01 −3.5680 - −3.5680 -

CS02 −27.4225 - −27.4142 -

CS03 −33.9561 −92.0947 −33.9470 −92.0681

CS04 −30.7539 −85.7298 −30.7445 −85.6974

Chapter 5

5.1 Introduction

In addition to the construction sequence a multiplicity of parameters influence the erection pro-

cess of cable-stayed bridges. In the simulation of the construction sequence by structural anal-

ysis programs, usually assumptions are made for these parameters that are experience values,

measured values or guidelines from design codes. Due to the high flexibility of cable-stayed

bridges, slight variations in the parameter values may already cause significant differences be-

tween the predicted and the actual state of the structure in a given construction stage. Because

errors between the design values and actual ones are inevitable, it is necessary to carry out a

continuous monitoring of the deck elevations and cable forces throughout the erection process

and to compare the actual values with the theoretical predictions. If the difference is small it

may be tolerated, but generally adjustments during the construction process are necessary to

reduce discrepancies in the final dead load condition. Should such differences be not corrected

in a timely manner and thus be allowed to accumulate, the geometry and internal forces of the

bridge may be out of control.

Generally, in order to achieve the desired geometry and internal forces in the bridge at the end

of construction, the deformation of the structure and the cable forces are continuously observed

and then compared with the results of the theoretical calculation. On the basis of the discrepan-

cies, a forecast of the future evolution of structure can be made and the cable-forces and camber

data can be adjusted so as to minimize the error between the forecast and the theoretical final

dead load condition.

In the following possible uncertainties in cable-stayed bridges are presented and methods to

avoid or at least reduce discrepancies between the actual and theoretical state of a cable-stayed

bridge are described. Within the scope of the description of construction control of cable-stayed

bridges a method to adjust discrepancies during the construction process is explained. In order

to safe time and to reduce the construction costs, the aim is to only adjust the cables forces and

the camber data of subsequently installed stay cables and segments and avoid retensioning of

already installed cables.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 94

state of a cable-stayed bridge during construction

The discrepancies between the theoretical predictions and the actual structural responses can be

attributed to the following factors:

• Differences between the assumed structural parameters for the design and the actual val-

ues achieved on site that include:

– Error in section data of the girder, the pylon or the cables

– Incorrect estimation of dead load and construction loads

– Incorrect prediction of time effects on materials such as creep and shrinkage

– Incorrect assumption of the temperature distribution in the bridge deck and tower

– etc.

– Error in the magnitude of stay cable tension forces

– Welding or bolting errors

– etc.

ferent. In order to detect the influence of variations of a particular parameter, calculations

considering the errors separately can be performed. This way the structural characteristics can

be cleared and it becomes much easier to identify the structural parameters that are responsi-

ble for the discrepancies between the predicted and actual state of a cable-stayed bridge during

construction. Generally, errors of girder segment weights have the most important effects on

the girder deflection and the cable forces of cable-stayed bridges.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 95

site

In order to avoid high discrepancies between the actual and theoretical deformations and internal

forces and moments, it is current practice to determine the actual loads, material characteristics

and environmental conditions on site before starting the erection of the bridge. If variations

of the input parameters occur they can be implemented in the input file of the analysis model

for the construction stage analysis and the initial cable forces and fabrication camber data that

cause the desired final condition can be recalculated.

In addition to the corrections of the input parameters before starting the erection process, the

computational model should also be continuously updated with input values measured on site

during the construction process. Segment weights should be monitored by checking member

dimensions and concrete unit weight or weighting segments (precast) and the environmental

conditions such as temperature and relative humidity need to be repeatedly measured. When

the computer simulation is frequently calibrated with the actual values it is relatively easy to

consistently recalculate the stay tensions which will produce the same final state of the tower

and the deck geometry that was previously anticipated. Furthermore, possible error factors are

diminished and by precisely knowing individual parameters it is much easier to identify the

reason for discrepancies between the actual structural responses and the theoretical predictions.

The construction control of cable-stayed bridges is important to guarantee safety during the

construction process and to achieve the designed geometry and internal forces of the bridge

within reasonable tolerance. The construction control consists of the following four tasks:

1. Simulation analysis of the construction process using the input data (e.g. material and

loading data) updated with the actual values determined on site

• Tensions of the cables

• Stresses of the concerned sections in the deck and the pylon

• Temperatures and gradients in the deck, pylon and cables

3. Comparison of the theoretical and actual results and forecast of the future evolution

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 96

The determination of the initial cable forces that need to be applied at the time of their installa-

tion to achieve a designed geometry or bending moment distribution at the time of completion

of a cable-stayed bridge was already explained in detail in Chapter 3 and 4. If the cable forces

are known, a detailed stage by stage construction procedure of the considered structure can

be simulated that takes into account the exact construction process, creep and shrinkage and

nonlinear effects. The construction stage analysis can be performed by any analysis program,

but the program should be sufficiently flexible to allow any stay force, dead load or material

adjustment in a very short time. In this thesis the structural engineering software programs

MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 are used for the analysis of cable-stayed bridges (see Chapter 4).

They provide detailed information about the condition in every construction stage of an analysis

(deformations, bending moments, stresses, etc.). By performing a construction stage analysis

by one of these programs a theoretical reference for each construction stage can be established

that includes information about elevations, cable tensions and internal forces at any time during

erection. Furthermore, input parameters as well as casting and installation times of segments

can easily be changed to predict the real behavior (including time-dependent effects) of a struc-

ture during erection. When there is a need for slight modifications of the input parameter or the

construction times, the simulation of the actual construction process provides information on

the adjustment of cable tensions and precamber.

Field measurements during the erection of cable-stayed bridges should be done in each con-

struction phase. The higher the frequency of surveys, the easier it is to get a continuous picture

of the conditions of the structure and to detect abnormal deviations. Moreover, stopping the

erection process to be able to conduct a detailed survey is not necessary.

In order to avoid problems caused by temperature variations, all field measurements should be

performed between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. when the temperature of the structure remains constant.

Thus, corrections due to thermal gradients in deck and due to difference in temperature between

the stays and the rest of the structure are small.

Usually the deck elevations at a particular construction stage are measured at the ends of the

previous three to five segments to monitor the configuration of the bridge deck; the horizontal

displacements of the pylon are measured at different levels. Instant movements of the deck and

the pylon should be measured during loading and unloading operations. When measurements

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 97

are systematically carried out before and after each tensioning operation and segment lifting an

interpretation of the results will give indications on the actual stiffness of the structure.

The movements of the pylon can be monitored by means of bench marks fixed to the soil and

installed perpendicularly to the pylon so as to allow measurements at different levels of the

pylon (footing, deck level, struts). The vertical deck displacements can be followed through

topographical marks placed on the longitudinal bridge girders.

During the erection of a cable-stayed bridge, the profile of the main girder and the structural

internal force state are strongly related to the cable forces. It is therefore required that cable

stay tensions are measured at high accuracy and efficiency. However, stay stressing is one of

the most critical operations performed during the construction of a cable-stayed bridge.

Different methods for the measurement of stay cable forces exist, but the frequency domain

method is presently the most commonly used method. The method basically consists of two

steps. First, the random vibration signals of cables under ambient excitation are picked up by

accelerometers attached to them and the signals are analyzed in the frequency domain with the

natural frequencies of the cables being identified. Second, the cable forces are deduced ac-

cording to the relationships between tensions and frequencies of the cables, which should be

determined in advance by theoretical analysis and field calibration. The frequency method is

more exact than other methods to measure cable forces, but it is evident that its effectiveness

depends on the accuracy in both the signal-pickup techniques and tension-frequency relation-

ship of the cables.

During the erection each cable is calibrated after it is just installed and stressed. Additionally,

sensors should be installed to a few other previously installed cables to establish whether the

actual stay tensions precisely correspond to those predicted by the design model. Before and

after the bridge closure the cable tensions of all installed cables should be measured once again.

An important aspect regarding the initial stay forces at the time of installation is the effect of

thermal gradients on stay forces. The nominal stay force calculated in the design does not

account for thermal effects. If a stay has to be stressed at day time, one solution is to verify

and adjust the stay force in early morning; another possibility is to compute a correction that

accounts for the loss due to gradients. Generally, during daytime, thermal gradients create a

downward deflection of the cantilever. When the gradient dissipates, the cantilever deflects

back up and the result is a loss of stay force. Therefore, when stressing a cable during daytime,

an increase of stay force is required.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 98

At each construction stage the concrete stresses at critical sections along the girder and pylons

must be monitored and reviewed so as to ensure the structural safety as construction goes for-

ward. This can be done by embedding strain gauges at the concerned sections of the girder and

pylons. However, precautions must be taken to obtain valid results from the gauges:

• Gauges must be installed properly and must not disturb during concrete pours

• Gauges have to be distributed across the width and the depth of the section so that average

axial stresses can be estimated

It should be noted that based on the use of strain gauges only concrete strains can be measured

directly. The strains must then be transformed into equivalent stresses by stress-strain relation-

ships, whereby the concrete modulus of elasticity has to be estimated. The critical issue in

determining the concrete stresses is to separate the non-stress strains due to creep and shrinkage

effects from the total strain in concrete. This problem can be solved on the basis of the fact that

the stresses at the neutral axis of the girder are only related to cable forces. First, the stresses

along the neutral axis of the girder are calculated by use of measured cable forces. Second,

those stresses are then used to calibrate the corresponding stresses by field measurements, from

which the creep and shrinkage coefficients of concrete can be identified. Finally, the above

results can further be used to modify the measured stresses at upper and lower edges of the

sections.

Temperature:

cable-stayed bridges during erection. There are three different kinds of temperature effects,

namely the effect of overall temperature difference, the effect of temperature difference between

the girder and cables and the effect of temperature gradient of the girder. Overall temperature

difference has only little influence while the latter two factors have a large influence on the

bridge.

The average deck temperature, the temperature gradient of the bridge deck and the average cable

temperature are monitored by placing thermocouples in different parts of segments, distributing

them over the full height of the pylon and inserting thermocouples in the strands of a reference

cable.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 99

5.4.3 Comparison of the theoretical and actual results and forecast of the

future evolution

The comparison of the results involves holding the actual data up against the theoretical results

determined by the simulation analysis of the erection process in each construction phase. This

way the accuracy of the computer simulation can be checked, particularly with respect to the

assumed structural parameters.

If the deviations between the measured values and the values expected from design in a particu-

lar construction stage are lower than prescribed limits, the construction process can be continued

with the next stage without any changes. However, the erection hardly ever exactly follows the

predicted sequence and thus, in most cases significant differences between the actual structural

responses and the theoretical predictions will appear. In order to eliminate or at least reduce

these errors, a serious analysis must be performed to understand the reasons for the deviations,

which is of major importance in order to select the adapted amendment.

If stay force or camber adjustments are made without searching for causes of the discrepancies,

unacceptable conditions of the structure may result in the following construction stages. A sim-

ple example is:

If the differences in cantilever deflection come from a deviation between the actual and theo-

retical stiffness of the bridge girder, unacceptable stresses may be caused in the subsequent

stages when the bridge is erected following the theoretical elevations only.

The deck deflects up and down under stay stressing and segment lifting or pouring, whereby the

amplitude of the deflections increases with the length of the cantilever. If the bridge is stiffer

than assumed, the cantilever tip elevation will seem low after stressing a cable. In this case, it

would be a mistake to correct the elevation by overstressing the stay until the theoretical eleva-

tion is reached. Instead of an improvement of the erection process this would create extremely

high stresses in the bridge deck and the desired final condition will not be reached.

It becomes clear that the identification of the errors causing the discrepancies between the actual

and theoretical state of a cable-stayed bridge is an important task to obtain sufficient structural

amendments. However, the error identification is a difficult procedure. It is obvious that the

complex distribution of actual structural errors can not be estimated from the limited data ob-

tained from the measurement on site.

A relatively simple error identification method is to assume several patterns of typical structural

errors and approximate the actual error by their linear combination. The response of a cable-

stayed bridge to the assumed error can be expressed by Aerr x X, where X is a vector of which

the components are the multipliers for respective error patterns and A err is the error influence

matrix. The columns of Aerr represent the responses to the unit errors X1 , X2 , ..., Xn . The

multipliers X can be calculated by minimizing the difference between the actual errors and the

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 100

approximated errors:

As already explained in Chapter 3.2.1 one of the most effective ways to obtain the minimum of

the difference between two vectors is to minimize the square error, which can be written as:

In order to vary the weight between respective errors in the objective value, an additional weight

matrix W can be included:

Even if a solution for the multiplication factors X is found, it may happen that the identified error

does not coincide with the real error. Generally, an extremely inaccurate error identification may

result due to the fact that proper error patterns were not used in the identification process. This

may be interpreted that the identification of the actual error is almost impossible, since the

correct patterns of the actual error are unknown.

However, according to Fujisawa et al. [13] this does not mean that the error identification is

useless. The objective of an economic cable adjustment is not to know the accurate structural

error, but to predict the response of the structure in future. Thus, even if the identified errors

are wrong, the calculated error factors may be used as an equivalent error to the actual one for

the prediction of the final state. A good approximation of the final condition may be reached if

it can be assumed that the change in the structural characteristics up to the final stage does not

significantly affect the response to the error identified in the current stage. However, satisfying

estimations of the condition of the structure at the time of completion may be achieved by

repeating the error identification procedure in subsequent construction stages.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 101

The validity of the assumption that a satisfactorily prediction of the final state can be reached,

even if the actual error patterns are not identified, is proved in the example calculation of a

cable-stayed bridge in Chapter 6.

If the choice of error patterns does absolutely not correspond to the actual combination or if

field measurements contain errors and the future evolution of the structure does not follow the

prediction when the identified error is introduced in the analysis, a complete check-up of the

structure becomes necessary to find explanations for the discrepancies. In this case the erection

has to be stopped until the designer is able to understand what happens. The complete check-up

includes:

• all methods used to evaluate construction data must be questioned and checked

• parasitic phenomena must be foreseen, such as concrete hardening effects, shrinkage, etc.

Without much doubt from such a detailed and complete checking an explanation of the differ-

ences between the actual and theoretical response of the structure will be found.

During the construction of most cable-stayed bridges, at least some discrepancies occur be-

tween the actual state and the state of design expectation. Such discrepancies arise from the

errors of material and/or loading parameters as stated in the previous sections. Therefore, it is

generally required that certain construction adjustments are performed to control the discrep-

ancies within allowable tolerance. Since cables are installed in turn in the cantilever erection,

these adjustments can be made in two ways:

2. Adjustment of the cable forces and deck elevations timely during erection, i.e. limited

cables (usually cables installed in the current stage) are adjusted in arbitrary intermediate

stages

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 102

When the desired final dead load condition of a cable stayed bridge is achieved by adjusting the

cable forces in the final construction stage, the construction is conducted carefully in relative

geometry; each new segment is carefully referenced to the previous one. After completion of

the cantilevers they are adjusted to the desired final geometry by an adjustment of all cables.

In this case, geometrical control and intermediate computations are only used to detect large

errors.

This procedure has two big advantages. First, forecasting the future evolution of the bridge is

not needed. The discrepancies between the actual and the desired condition can be exactly mea-

sured in the final construction stage just before adjusting the cable forces. Moreover, because

all stay cables are adjusted before the completion of the bridge, the cable tension forces at the

time of installation do not need to be precisely known. Second, in the final construction stage,

the error in the global geometry is much easier to correct than in previous stages. The longer the

cantilever, the more flexible it is and the smaller the change in cable forces required to correct

discrepancies in geometry.

However, adjusting the cable forces in the final construction stage implicates that each cable

will be tensioned twice. Once at the time of installation and again in the final construction stage

just before the closure of the bridge. These cable force adjustments of already installed cables

are not preferable, because it takes time and increases the construction costs. From the econom-

ical point of view it would be much more reasonable to adjust tension forces of cables that have

not been installed yet. Furthermore, a small error at the beginning of the construction of a cable

stayed bridge generates a larger error later on. If the cable tension forces are not adjusted until

the final construction stage, unacceptable stresses and deformations due to the error may occur

during the erection of the bridge.

2. Adjustment of the cable forces and deck elevations timely during erection

The adjustment of the cable forces and deck elevations timely during erection is inferior to the

adjustment of the cable forces in the final stage from the standpoint of final residual errors, but

it is frequently employed because of economy. Especially in case of long-span cable-stayed

bridges the stressing of the stay cables is an expensive procedure and the aim should be to

reduce the number of stressing operations during the erection as much as possible.

During the construction of cable-stayed bridges, discrepancies in geometry can not only be

reduced by adjusting cable forces, but also by adjusting the elevation of a segment which can be

done by including an extra angle at the joint between two adjacent segments. In this case, only

the geometrical position of the girder is modified and the internal forces remain unchanged.

Thus, eliminating discrepancies between the actual and theoretical deformation by adjusting

deck elevations does not reduce possible discrepancies in internal forces and moments.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 103

In case of adjusting the cable forces and deck elevations timely during erection, the error iden-

tification takes place in earlier stages. After detecting the error in the current situation, the final

condition of the structure is extrapolated and becomes a reference for the adjustment. The fore-

cast of the final state of the bridge is independent from the construction phase being examined.

Based on the predicted final condition, adjustments of the segment elevations and cables forces

of subsequent construction phases can be determined. This way retensioning of stay cables is

avoided, which saves time and decreases the construction costs.

5.4.4.1 Procedure for optimum cable force and deck elevation adjustment

The goal of construction adjustment is to achieve both the desired deck profile or the desired

bending moment distribution, respectively, and the the cable forces calculated in the original

stage analysis. But, in fact, the requirements for deck-profile geometry and cable-stay tensions

are frequently incompatible; it seems impossible to achieve both requirements simultaneously

due to the influence of other parameter errors. In view of these considerations, in the following

the deck elevations or the bending moment distribution along the girder and the pylon, respec-

tively, are controlled, while the cable forces can be turned over a suitable range to eliminate or

reduce the effects of the error factors on the deck profile and internal force state of the girder

and pylons.

The desired geometry and/or the desired bending moment distribution can practically not ex-

actly be achieved by construction adjustments. In reality there always exist errors between the

ideal and actual values; the adjustment is necessary to reduce these errors.

The adjustment strategy presented in this thesis aims the minimization of the residual errors of

the structure. As it was found in Chapter 3, the relationship between the initial cable forces at

the time of installation and the response of the structure in the final construction stage is linear

as long as nonlinear effects are not considered. Thus, if the error in structural input parameters

is identified and introduced into the analysis model, a modified influence matrix, A, can be ob-

tained that describes the response of the structure to unit tension forces in the cables when using

revised input data (error included). If all cable forces shall be adjusted in the final construction

stage, the unit cable forces also need to be applied in the final construction stage; for an adjust-

ment of the cable forces and deck elevations timely during erection, the unit forces are applied

at the time of cable installation. In order to avoid retensioning of already installed cables, in the

latter case, only the influence of those cable forces is considered that are not yet installed at the

time of examination. Using the influence matrix the residual error of a structure is given as:

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 104

Df inal = the vector of discrepancies between the desired condition and

the forecasted (adjustment during construction) or actual final

state (adjustment in the final stage), respectively, when the

identified error is included in the analysis

A = the influence matrix of which columns represent the response of

the structure to the unit cable forces

X = the vector multiplication factors for the additional forces

Similar to the procedure of error identification, the vector of residual errors, E res , can be mini-

mized in the sense of least square errors. If a weight matrix is included (see Equation (5.3)) the

expression that needs to be minimized is:

Unless the discrepancies definitely result from incorrect installed segments the error in the final

construction stage is tried to be reduced by cable force adjustments. If the desired final condi-

tion is a restricted deformation, no further deck elevation adjustments are needed. Apart from

the residual, error the desired geometry will be achieved by adjusting the cable tension forces.

If the desired final condition is a restricted bending moment distribution (e.g. bending moment

distribution of an equivalent continuous beam), the desired geometry is generally reached by

an appropriate precamber. To make sure that the desired bending moment distribution and the

desired geometry in the final construction stage can still be achieved simultaneously when the

error is included in the analysis, the fabrication camber also has to be modified during erection.

As already explained in Chapter 3.4, when zero displacement is desired, the fabrication camber

is the curve between the up-side-down final displacements of all joints between two segments.

In order to determine the additional angle that has to be introduced at the joints between the

segments, the final displacements of the original stage analysis need to be compared with the

final displacements of the construction stage analysis including the revised input data. The ad-

ditional angle at a particular joint is the difference between the angle in the original fabrication

camber and the angle in the fabrication camber resulting from the modified analysis. However,

since the deck elevation of the segments that have already been installed can not be changed,

slight modifications of the updated camber data need to be made in these regions.

CHAPTER 5. CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND MONITORING 105

The procedure of cable forces and deck elevation adjustments timely during erection to re-

duce discrepancies between the actual and theoretical state of a cable-stayed bridge is shown

in the analysis of a simple model of a cable-stayed bridge in Chapter 6. Different errors in

the structural parameters are incorporated in the construction stage analysis and, on the basis

of the difference in geometry and cable forces between the modified and original analysis, the

error is identified and construction adjustments are performed. Finally, the results in the final

construction stage of the adjusted model are compared to the theoretical results of the original

construction stage analysis which proves the functionality of the above described adjustment

procedure.

Chapter 6

Bridge

6.1 Introduction

In the following part of this thesis the procedure to determine the initial cable forces presented

in Chapter 3 and the method to control the geometry and internal forces during the cantilever

construction explained in Chapter 5, are adopted in the analysis of a simple cable stayed bridge.

The calculations are performed by the dint of the structural engineering software programs

Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil that were introduced in Chapter 4. The dimensions and structural

properties of the example model that is used for the calculations are given in Section 6.1.

Primarily, only the final construction stage is considered in the calculation of the unknown

load factors for the applied unit loads. In a second step the initial cable force are determined

based on a time-independent construction stage analysis and finally not only the construction

process, but also time effects on materials are considered in the analysis. The pre-tension forces

resulting from the different calculations are compared and evaluated with the main concern on

the influence of effect of creep and shrinkage on the optimum stay cable forces. Furthermore,

based on the resulting cable forces and the corresponding bending moments and deformations

of the structure, the functionality of the construction stage analysis features of the used analysis

programs is proved.

In Section 6.6 a nonlinear time-dependent construction stage analysis using the initial cable

forces determined in the linear analysis is performed to demonstrate the influence of second-

order and large displacement effects on the erection of cable-stayed bridges and the last part

of this chapter deals with the construction control during the bridge erection. Different error

factors are included in the analysis model and are controlled during the construction process by

adjusting the cable forces and the deck elevations timely during erection.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 107

The structural system that is used for the example calculations is shown in Figure 6.1. It is a

simple asymmetrical cable-stayed bridge consisting of 5 girder segments and a key segment.

The bridge deck is supported by 5 cables that are arranged in a fan system, i.e. all cables are

anchored at the top of the pylon. The total height of the pylon is 30m; the distance from the

pylon base to the bridge deck is 10m.

The anchorage points of the cables at the bridge deck are located at intervals of 12m and 4x16m

which corresponds to the lengths of the girder segments (girder 1 to girder 5). The key segment

at the end of the bridge has a length of 8m. However, in reality the length of concrete segments

would be much shorter (usually 3m to 5m), but in in order to limit the number of erection stages

of the example model, one segment is assumed to have the length between two cables.

The bridge deck is modeled of 21 elements, each having a length of 4m and the pylon consists

of 5 elements that have a length of 2x4,75m and 3x6,83m. Node number 1 is fixed, node num-

ber 101 is rigidly fixed and node number 22 is supported in z-direction.

The bridge girder is supported vertically on the pylon, but is free to move laterally, which is

modeled by rigidly linking the degree of freedom in vertical direction of joint 103 to the ver-

tical displacement of joint 8. The joints will move independently in horizontal direction while

they will have the same vertical displacement.

For the bridge girder a simple T-beam concrete cross-section is assumed. A Eurocode standard

concrete C35/45 is used. The material, section and loading data of the example model are given

in Tables 6.1 to 6.3.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 108

Classification Modulus of Elasticity 2 Poisson’s Ratio 3 Compressive strength at age

(kN/m2 ) - of 28 days fck (kN/m2 )

Deck 3.3282 · 107 0.3 35.000

Pylon 3.3282 · 107 0.3 35.000

Cable 2.1000 · 108 0.3 -

Classification Cross-sectional Area Moment of Inertia Perimeter

(m2 ) (m4 ) (m)

Deck 4.35 0.92 25.00

Pylon 1.00 2.76 10.00

Cable 1 0.0208 - -

Cable 2-5 0.0062 - -

Classification Load-Value

Dead load (self weight) 25.0 kN/m3

Additional dead load 10.0 kN/m

Unit pre-/post-tensioning load (cables) 10.0 kN

Derrick crane 750 kN

Segment load Vertical load: A · 25 kN/m · LSeg

Eccentric moment: A · 25 kN/m · L2Seg /2

Unit support movement 1.0 mm

The self weight of the cables is neglected in the analysis of the example model. Thus, the cables

are treated as truss elements with the real modulus of elasticity of the cable and cable sag effects

are not considered.

For the solution for unknown load factors constraints need to be defined that are to be satisfied

in the final dead load condition. These constraints can be a set of forces/moments, stresses or

displacements or a combination of these at defined locations on the bridge. The purpose of

an optimum tensioning strategy is to achieve a desired final geometry and a desired final mo-

ment/stress distribution simultaneously. As already mentioned, the geometry of the bridge is

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 109

influenced by an appropriate fabrication camber and thus the main objective is to minimize the

bending moments along the bridge girder and the pylon. However, dead load bending moments

and cable forces will redistribute due to concrete creep and minimizing the bending moments

at the time of completion of the bridge does not necessarily mean that they will stay the same

during service life.

There is a general belief that creep effects due to bending can be minimized if the deck is erected

so that the internal forces for the dead load configuration are those of the continuous beam on

rigid supports. In this case the spanwise overall curvature is zero and moment variations due to

creep eliminate each other. However, this may be the case when all segments of the bridge have

the same age, the same loading age and creep effects of the pylon are neglected which is hardly

ever the case. Generally, the bending moments will still redistribute, even if they equate those

of an equivalent continuous beam at the end of construction.

For the example model described above it was found that if the bending moment distribution of

an equivalent continuous beam is achieved in the final construction stage, considerable changes

of the internal forces and moments occur during the service live. The magnitude of the nega-

tive bending moment at the connection of the bridge girder to the pylon clearly increases and

the magnitude of the negative bending moments at the anchorage points of the last two cables

change towards positive bending due to creep.

It is also possible to aim for a desired moment distribution at a time when the majority of creep

effects have occurred. However, this causes an unacceptable condition at the time of comple-

tion of the bridge. For instance, if the bending moment distribution of an equivalent continuous

beam is desired for day 6000 by stressing each cable only once at the time of installation, ex-

tremely high bending moments and deformations occur in the final stage of construction. The

bending moments may be acceptable, but adjusting vertical deflections of more than 500mm by

a fabrication camber is not reasonable.

In the following calculations the unknown load factors of the cable tension forces are calculated

for a restricted moment distribution (Case I) and for restricted displacements (Case II). In both

cases the restricted condition is requested for the time of completion of the bridge. The desired

bending moment distribution is that of an equivalent continuous beam along the girder and zero

at the pylon base. In case of the restricted deformation a zero vertical displacement is aspired

at the anchorage points of cable 1-4 and at the end of the bridge girder and a zero horizontal

displacement is desired at the top of the pylon.

This way the general procedure of optimizing the cable tension forces for a desired condition at

a specific date can be demonstrated. However, it becomes clear that it is almost impossible to

determine optimum initial tension forces that reduce bending stresses and deformations during

construction, at the end of construction and after years of operation simultaneously. The de-

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 110

signer of a cable stayed bridge always needs to find an ideal solution that minimizes the stresses

and deformations in all construction phases and the stressing operations at the same time. A

good solution may be to aim for a desired condition at the time of completion of the bridge and,

if needed, restress the cable forces after a few years of bridge operation, in order to compensate

for time-dependent effects occurring during service life of the bridge, which is done in the fol-

lowing.

The bending moment distribution of the equivalent continuous beam of the example model is

illustrated in Figure 6.2. The target values and locations that are used for the optimization

process are shown in Table 6.4.

Case I Case II

Location Target bending moment Target vertical displacement

(kN m) (mm)

Node 4 -2350 0

Node 8 -2600 -

Node12 -2500 0

Node 16 -2700 0

Node 20 -2000 0

Node 22 - 0

Node 101 0 -

Node 106 - 0 (horizontal)

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 111

analysis

As already described in Chapter 4, in MIDAS/Civil the initial cables forces can be calculated

using the unknown load factor function. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 illustrate the bending moment

distribution and the deflected shape, respectively, in the final stage under self weight, additional

dead load and unit pretension forces in the cables. Both diagrams are the result of a linear static

analysis of the complete structure.

Figure 6.3: Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit cable forces [kNm]

(dx=+28.23)

Figure 6.4: Vertical deformation under dead load and unit cable forces [mm]

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 112

In order to calculate the initial cable forces for restricted bending moments, constraints are

defined for the bending moment at node number 4, 12, 16, 20 and 101. The values for the

constraints are given in Table 6.4. The cables forces calculated by the unknown load factor

function in MIDAS/Civil are shown Table 6.5 and the resulting bending moment distribution

and vertical deformation of the structure when these cable forces are applied are illustrated in

Figures 6.5 and 6.6.

Table 6.5: Ideal cable forces for restricted bending moments, Case I

Cable: Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN )

Tension force: 9064.95 2790.89 2885.18 3992.78 4460.56

Figure 6.5: Moment distribution when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I

(dx=0.00)

Figure 6.6: Vertical deflection when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 113

In order to calculate the initial cable forces for restricted deformations, constraints are defined

for the vertical deflection at node number 4, 12, 16, 20 and and for the horizontal deflection at

node number 106. They are all set to be zero. The cables forces calculated by the unknown

load factor function in MIDAS/Civil are given in Table 6.6 and the resulting bending moment

distribution and vertical deformation of the structure when these cable forces are applied are

illustrated in Figures 6.7 and 6.8.

Cable: Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN )

Tension force: 9483.69 3318.52 3439.01 3765.49 4578.80

(dx=0.00)

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 114

The procedure of calculating unknown load factors by Larsa2000 was explained in Chapter

4.3.6.2. The bending moment distribution and the deflected shape of the example model under

self weight, additional dead load and unit pretension forces in the cables determined by a linear

static analysis in Larsa2000 are shown in Figures 6.9 and 6.10. Both diagrams equate those

determined by MIDAS/Civil.

-17644

2239

17663

8644

Figure 6.9: Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit cable forces [kNm]

(dx=+28.23)

+1.71

-82.35 -75.51

-140.75

Figure 6.10: Vertical deformation under dead load and unit cable forces [mm]

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 115

By applying each unit tension force (10 kN ) separately to the structure, the influence on the

objectives can be obtained. The resulting influence matrices for the moment (Case I) and dis-

placement (Case II) restriction are shown below.

+7.8069 −30.0183 +3.8952 −1.0193 −6.3109

−3.1736 +0.5621 −25.0806 +9.2918 +7.3318

Amoment =

−6.4576 −3.0379 −3.8192 −27.2154 +2.8456

−4.3352 −2.0774 −0.1913 −6.5033 −16.2726

−18.1750 +8.3804 −2.1709 −7.4557 −17.0789

−0.01828 +0.05306 −0.02065 −0.00264 +0.01342

+0.03957 −0.00535 +0.10789 +0.05480 −0.02394

Adispl. =

+0.05704 +0.01080 +0.09986 +0.13458 −0.00359

+0.02805 +0.00790 +0.03533 +0.06656 +0.02016

−0.05936 −0.02737 +0.00709 +0.02435 +0.05578

The first to the fifth row in the moment influence matrix, Amoment , describe the bending mo-

ments [kNm] at node 4, 12, 16, 20 and 101 due to a unit pre-tensioning of 10kN in cable 1 to

5. The first to the fifth row in the displacement influence matrix, A displ , describe the vertical

deflection [mm] at node 4, 12, 16 and 20 and the horizontal deflection [mm] at node 106 due to

a unit tension forces of 10kN in Cable 1 to 5.

The bending moments [kNm] and displacements [mm] at the selected nodes due to the self

weight and the additional dead load are the following:

+597.8020 +1.68327

+659.2632 −82.52467

MP = +15073.9935

δP = −141.05189

+12670.5173 −75.67107

−8643.5826 +28.22907

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 116

The constraint vectors for a restricted moment distribution and restricted deformations are given

below (see Table 6.4):

−2350 0

−2500 0

Mdesired = −2700

δdesired =

0

−2000 0

0 0

The initial cable forces can now be calculated by solving the following linear equations:

A−1

A−1 = Tdispl

+9642.955 +9483.695

+2790.892 +3318.517

Tmoment =

+2885.179

Tdispl =

+3439.013

+3992.780 +3765.486

+4460.557 +4578.799

Figures 6.11 to 6.14 illustrate the adjusted moment distribution and vertical deflections when

the above calculated cable forces are applied to the structure.

-2700

-2350 -2500

-2097 -2000

1136

1225 1482

1601 1528

Figure 6.11: Moment distribution when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 117

dz=-12.14,

dx= 0.00

Figure 6.12: Vertical deflection when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I

-3894 -3933

-2317 -2096

-327

645 742

1618

1922 1906

dz=-12.42,

dx= 0.00

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 118

static analysis

From the above calculations it is visible that the results determined by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000

equate each other. Furthermore, the bending moment and deformation diagrams that arise when

the calculated forces are applied show that the constraints are satisfied in all cases. However,

the calculated initial cable forces are those of the final erection stage. In order to determine

the cable forces that need to be applied at the time of installation, a backward analysis starting

from the final stage can be performed. This method is most likely the fastest to achieve a result

for the initial cable forces, but, as already explained in detail in Chapter 3.2.4.2, many different

problems may occur during the backward and subsequent forward analysis. However, such a

backward analysis is not performed in this thesis. The initial cable forces at the time of instal-

lation are determined in a forward construction stage analysis in the following section.

6.5 Calculation of the initial cable forces and the jacking dis-

tance in a construction stage analysis

The continuous change of structural systems during construction of a cable-stayed bridge con-

siderably affects the distribution of internal forces in the complete structure. Calculating the

initial cable forces in a construction stage analysis allows for the tensioning to take place at the

time of installation of each particular cable. Thus, the initial cable forces at the time of installa-

tion are directly determined and a backward analysis of the structure is not needed anymore.

When taking into account the construction process, the unit tensioning of the cables as well

as the dead load of the segments are not applied to the complete structure, but to the different

structural systems which exist at the individual construction stages. The construction sequence

of the example bridge is illustrated below:

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 119

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 120

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 121

The construction activities in the construction stages 1 to 14 are summarized in Table 6.7.

Structure Boundary Load

Stage

Activation Deactivation Activation Deactivation Activation Deactivation

Node 1

Girder 1-3 SW Girder 1-3

CS01: - Node 101 - -

Pylon Rigid Link SW Pylon

CS03: Cable 3 - - - Tension 3 -

D/C-12

CS04: - - - - -

Seg-12

CS05: Girder 4 - - - SW Girder 4 Seg-12

CS06: Cable 1 - - - Tension 1 -

CS07: Cable 4 - - - Tension 4 -

D/C-16

CS08: - - - - D/C-12

Seg-16

CS09: Girder 5 - - - SW Girder 5 Seg-16

CS10: Cable 5 - - - Tension 5 -

D/C-20

CS11: - - - - D/C-16

Seg-20

CS12: D/C-20

Key - - -

Seg-20

CS13: - - Node 22 - - -

CS14: - - - - Jack Up -

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 122

6.5.1 Calculation of the cable forces at the time of installation and the

jacking distance in a time-independent construction stage analysis

In order to calculate the initial cable forces at the time of installation, a time-independent con-

struction stage analysis is performed by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000. The unit tension force

of 10 kN of a cable is applied when the particular cable is installed. In contrast to the linear

static analysis the cable forces are not applied as internal, but as external loads. The method to

apply the cable forces as external loads in MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 was already explained

in Chapter 4.3.5.2.

The girder segments 4 and 5 as well as the key segment are installed tangentially, i.e a new acti-

vated segment is constructed by shifting the end node down to match the angular displacement

of the last node of the previously installed segment. The procedure to tangentially apply new

members in both analysis programs is described in Chapter 4.3.2.

The procedure of calculating unknown load factors in a construction stage analysis by MI-

DAS/Civil is illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 4.3. The bending moment distribution and

the deflected shape in the final construction stage under self weight, additional dead load, unit

tension forces in the cables and unit support jacking are shown in Figures 6.19 and 6.20. The

self weight of the deck segments and the unit tensioning of the cables are applied to the struc-

tural systems that are present at the time of their installation and the additional dead load is

applied to the complete structure in construction stage 14. In addition to the permanent loads

also the construction loads (derrick crane, segment lifting, etc.) are taken into account in the

construction process. Just like the permanent loads they have an influence on the final dead load

condition.

Figure 6.19: Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces [kNm], CS14

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 123

(dx=+153)

Figure 6.20: Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces [mm], CS14

In order to calculate the initial cable forces at the time of installation and the support movement

of node 22 for restricted bending moments, constraints are defined for the bending moment

in the final construction stage at node number 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 101. The values for the

constraints are given in Table 6.4. The cables forces and the support jacking calculated by the

unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil are shown in Table 6.8 and the resulting bending

moment distribution and vertical deformation of the structure when the calculated forces are

applied are illustrated in Figures 6.21 and 6.22.

Table 6.8: Ideal cable forces at time of installation and ideal support

jacking for restricted bending moments, Case I

Load: Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Ideal force: 3647.10 880.52 1471.47 2425.77 3281.85 21.45

Figure 6.21: Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 124

(dx=0.00)

Figure 6.22: Vertical deflection in CS14 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I

In order to calculate the initial cable forces at the time of installation and the support movement

of node 22 for restricted deformations, constraints are defined in the final construction stage for

the vertical deflection at node number 4, 12, 16, 20 and 22 and for the horizontal deflection at

node number 106. For all these deformations a value of zero is desired. The cables forces and

the support jacking calculated by the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil are given

in in Table 6.9 and the resulting bending moment distribution and vertical deformation of the

structure when the calculated forces are applied are illustrated in Figures 6.23 and 6.24.

Table 6.9: Ideal cable forces at time of installation and ideal support

jacking for restricted deformations, Case II

Load: Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Ideal force: 3750.53 1277.39 2364.82 1065.36 2456.73 −205.22

Figure 6.23: Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 125

(dx=0.00)

Figure 6.24: Vertical deflection in CS14 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II

The procedure of calculating unknown load factors is similar to the linear static analysis. The

only difference is that the unit tensioning of the cables is applied at the time of the cable installa-

tion and the influence on the structure is computed in the final construction stage. The bending

moment distribution and the deflected shape of the example model under dead load and unit

forces in the final construction stage are shown in Figure 6.25 and 6.26. The diagrams almost

equate those determined by MIDAS/Civil. Only small deviations in the bending moments and

deflections occur that result from the fact that a construction stage analysis in Larsa2000 is prin-

cipally a nonlinear analysis. However, as long as P-delta and large displacement effects are not

included in the analysis the difference is small (<1%) and is therefore neglected in the follow-

ing. The Larsa2000 results are treated as if they came from a linear construction stage analysis.

Only small adjustments of the unit forces are necessary to compensate for the nonlinear effects.

-38991

-32286

-23504

-15682

-46736

Figure 6.25: Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces [kNm], CS14

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 126

dz= -11.13,

dx=+152.64

43.84

-286.71

-843.14

-1566.85

-1944.02

Figure 6.26: Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces [mm], CS14

By applying each unit tension force (10 kN ) and the unit support movement separately to the

structure, the influence on the objectives in the final construction stage can be obtained. The

resulting influence matrices for the moment (Case I) and displacement (Case II) restriction are

shown below.

+40.6836 −52.9580 +11.3965 +4.4473 −0.0186 +8.0449

+13.8203 0.0000 +122.2637 +24.9434 +0.5137 +2.2793

+0.0078 0.0000 0.0000 +84.1484 +47.4180 +17.3828

Amoment =

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 +61.3555 +30.9688

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 +20.7705

+97.9180 185.3516 −39.8867 −1.3867 +0.3555 +22.0000

−0.09358 +0.11015 −0.09672 −0.02419 −0.00027 −0.01729

+0.22596 −0.18644 +0.79462 +0.28670 +0.06917 +0.06956

+0.47189 −0.37163 +1.75923 +1.07712 +0.48882 +0.28026

Adispl. =

+0.71752 −0.55695 +2.72310 +1.98412 +1.31667 +0.71669

+0.84019 −0.64945 +3.20458 +2.43735 +1.77264 +1.00005

−0.31979 −0.60534 +0.13027 +0.00453 −0.00115 −0.07185

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 127

The first to the sixth row in the moment influence matrix, A moment , describe the bending mo-

ments [kNm] at node 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 101 in CS14 due to a unit post-tensioning of 10kN in

cable 1 to 5 and a unit upward movement of 1mm of joint 22. The first to the sixth row in the

displacement influence matrix, Adispl , describe the vertical deflection [mm] at node 4, 12, 16,

20 and 22 and the horizontal deflection at node 106 [mm] due to the unit loads.

The bending moments [kNm] and displacements [mm] at the selected nodes in CS14 due to the

permanent and construction loads are the following:

−15685.08105 +43.94349

−32447.93359 −287.90420

−39123.04297 −846.56829

MP = δP =

−23565.32422

−1573.03834

−2424.57568 −1951.62916

−46978.55859 +153.42693

The constraint vectors for a restricted moment distribution and restricted deformations are given

below (see Table 6.4):

−2350 0

−2600 0

−2500 0

Mdesired = δdesired =

−2700

0

−2000 0

0 0

The initial cable forces and the upward movement of node 22 can be calculated by solving the

same linear equation as for the linear static analysis. The resulting tension forces and support

movement are:

+3705.806 +3489.802

+888.388 +1053.356

+1504.592 +1756.306

Tmoment = Tdispl =

+2451.442

+2246.385

+3297.552 +3354.321

+20.441 +21.882

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 128

Because of the slight nonlinearity of the Larsa2000 calculation, the above calculated cable

forces and support movement do not exactly cause the desired final condition. Small deviations

to the constraints occur that can be adjusted by adding a ∆T to the calculated values. The ad-

justment load vector, ∆T, can be calculated by multiplying the error by the particular influence

matrix. The resulting cable forces and the upward movement of node 22 differ only little from

the initial values. The adjusted loads are given below:

+3649.067 +3447.845

+878.008 +1042.967

+1473.010 +1721.642

Tnew Tnew

m = Tm + ∆Tm = ; d = Td + ∆Td =

+2436.594

+2227.100

+3287.779 +3375.160

+21.439 +16.643

Figures 6.27 to 6.30 illustrate the adjusted moment distribution and vertical deflections when

the above calculated adjusted cable forces and the adjusted upward movement of joint 22 are

applied.

-2350 -2000

Figure 6.27: Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 129

dz=-12.69,

dx= 0.00

Figure 6.28: Vertical deflection in CS14 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I

-3906 -3946

-2311 -2100

-308

641 739

1913 1619

1928

Figure 6.29: Moment distribution in CS14 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II

dz=-13.01,

dx= 0.00

Figure 6.30: Vertical deformation in CS14 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 130

6.5.1.3 Summary of the determination of the cable forces and jacking distance in a time-

independent construction stage analysis

The initial cable forces at the time of installation and the jacking of the right support deter-

mined from the time-independent construction stage analyses by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000

are summarized in Table 6.10. It is visible that in case of restricting the bending moments the

results determined by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 almost equate each other. Only small devi-

ations of less than 1% occur that can be ascribed to the fact that a construction stage analysis by

Larsa2000 is principally a nonlinear analysis. Even if second-order theory and large displace-

ment effects are not included in the analysis and no elements with nonlinear material properties

are used, Larsa still considers the stress-stiffening effect of the members. The bending moment

diagrams in Figure 6.21 and 6.27 show that the moment constraints are satisfied when the cal-

culated loads are applied.

This nonlinear behavior of the structure in the analysis by Larsa2000 not only results in devi-

ations compared to the results from a linear construction stage analysis, but also requires an

iteration process to determine the initial cable forces and the movement of the right support that

cause the desired condition in the final construction stage. However, the nonlinear effects are

small and only one adjustment step is needed to obtain satisfactorily results.

Table 6.10: Comparison of the ideal cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support

jacking determined by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000

Restriction Program Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Moments MIDAS 3647.10 880.52 1471.47 2425.77 3281.85 21.45

(Case I) Larsa 3649.07 878.01 1473.01 2436.59 3287.78 21.44

Displacements MIDAS 3750.53 1277.39 2364.82 1065.36 2456.73 −205.22

(Case II) Larsa 3447.85 1042.97 1721.64 2227.10 3375.16 16.64

Regarding the results for the adjustment of the displacements much larger differences between

the two analysis programs occurred. As visible from Figure 6.24 the resulting cable forces

and the support movement determined by the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil

do not cause the desired deflected shape of the structure. The reason is that the unknown load

factor function does not consider the real displacements of the structure, but only the nodal

displacements (net displacement). The fact that the new segments are activated tangentially

is neglected in the unknown load factor calculation. When using the calculated values in a

construction stage analysis where the initial tangent displacement for erected structures option

is not activated, the desired constraints are satisfied (see Figure 6.31). However, the cable forces

and the support movement calculated by the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil are

not useful for the real bridge construction. Using this function in a construction stage analysis

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 131

(dx=0.00)

Figure 6.31: Vertical deformation in CS14 when the initial tangent displacement

for erected structures option is not activated [mm], Case II (MIDAS)

only yields practical results for moment constraints as the bending moments do not change

when the segments are activated tangentially.

The deflected shape diagram in Figure 6.30 shows that when applying the initial cable forces

and support movement calculated by Larsa2000 to the structure, the desired constraints are

satisfied.

6.5.2 Calculation of the cable forces at the time of installation and the

jacking distance in a time-dependent construction stage analysis

Time effects on materials such as creep and shrinkage considerably influence the deformation

and the bending moment distribution during and after construction of a cable-stayed bridge. In

order to achieve a desired geometry and a desired stress condition at the time of completion of

the structure, time-dependent effects need to be taken into account in the determination of the

unknown load factors. In the following, the unknown load factors for the cable forces at the

time of installation and the jacking of the right support are computed in a time-dependent con-

struction stage analysis by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000. The restrictions are applied to the final

construction stage and the changes over time after completion of the bridge are presented. In

order to compensate for the time-dependent effects occurring during service life of the bridge,

the stay cables can be retensioned after a few years of bridge operation. The required retension

forces can be calculated in a similar manner as the initial cable forces. However, the determi-

nation of restressing forces of the stay cables is not the objective of this thesis and is therefore

not presented in this report.

The basis for the determination of the effects of creep and shrinkage is the CEB-FIB 1990 model

code. In addition to the material and section data of the example model, a relative humidity of

70% and a normal hardening cement are assumed. The construction time is shown in Figure

6.15 to 6.18.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 132

As already explained in Chapter 3.3.6.3 the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil does

not allow for the consideration of time-dependent effects. Therefore, in order to determine the

initial cable forces and the support movement considering time effects on materials a similar

procedure as for the determination of unknown load factors by Larsa2000 is used. Because of

the linear relationship between the final internal forces and displacements and the elastic strain,

influence matrices containing the effects of creep and shrinkage can be obtained in a similar

manner as described for the time-independent construction stage analysis. The unit pretension

forces are applied at the time of installation, a time-dependent construction stage analysis in-

cluding creep and shrinkage is performed and then the influences on the objectives in the final

construction stage are computed.

The bending moment distribution and the deflected shape of the example model under perma-

nent and unit loads in the final construction stage of a time-dependent analysis by MIDAS/Civil

are shown in Figure 6.32 and 6.33.

Figure 6.32: Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [kNm]

(dx=+199)

Figure 6.33: Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [mm]

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 133

By applying all unit loads separately to the structure, the influence on the objectives in the final

construction stage can be obtained. The resulting influence matrices for the moment (Case I)

and displacement (Case II) restriction are shown below.

+36.0873 −36.3393 +3.0681 +1.1252 −0.5642 +8.0447

+7.0653 +4.0183 +88.3451 +11.1211 −3.1112 +2.2783

−0.5960 +0.0124 −1.5306 +70.2103 +34.8914 +17.3832

Amoment =

+0.0291 −0.0023 −0.0116 −0.8571 +54.1535 +30.9689

+0.0055 +0.0063 +0.0114 +0.0158 +0.0170 +20.7702

−64.3278 −120.1794 +16.4919 −0.1673 −0.4807 −21.9989

−0.12226 +0.11965 −0.09779 −0.01458 +0.00408 −0.01729

+0.25904 −0.17118 +0.90636 +0.26574 +0.04203 +0.06957

+0.52966 −0.33238 +2.00167 +1.17775 +0.47926 +0.28028

Adispl. =

+0.79926 −0.49358 +3.09397 +2.24598 +1.44877 +0.71677

+0.93409 −0.57417 +3.64014 +2.77940 +1.99177 +1.00000

−0.34656 −0.69098 +0.09614 −0.00058 −0.00233 −0.07185

The first to the sixth row in the moment influence matrix, A moment , describe the bending mo-

ments [kNm] at node 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 101 at day 89 due to the unit forces in cable 1 to 5 at

time of installation and the unit upward movement of joint 22. The first to the sixth row in the

displacement influence matrix, Adispl , describe the vertical deflection [mm] at node 4, 12, 16,

20 and 22 and the horizontal deflection [mm] at node 106 at day 89 due to the six unit loads.

The bending moments [kNm] and displacements [mm] at the selected nodes at day 89 due to

the permanent and construction loads are the following:

−14619.5649 +56.53704

−23015.1107 −350.43678

−32414.0725 −1055.76985

MP = δP =

−22022.0781

−2007.93937

−2464.0948 −2508.31960

+36488.1468 +200.28026

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 134

The constraint vectors for a restricted moment distribution and restricted deformations are given

below (see Table 6.4):

−2350 0

−2600 0

−2500 0

Mdesired = δdesired =

−2700

0

−2000 0

0 0

The initial cable forces and the upward movement of node 22 can be calculated by solving the

same linear equation as for the linear static analysis by Larsa2000. The resulting tension forces

and support movement are:

+4170.551 +3912.032

+983.941 +1171.994

+1728.723 +2063.412

Tmoment = Tdispl =

+2549.188

+2397.176

+3482.837 +3803.304

+21.631 +35.280

Figures 6.34 to 6.37 illustrate the adjusted moment distribution and vertical deflections when

the above calculated cable forces and the upward movement of joint 22 are applied.

Figure 6.34: Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 135

(dx+1.86)

Figure 6.35: Vertical deflection at day 89 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I

Figure 6.36: Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II

(dx=+0.00)

Figure 6.37: Vertical deformation at day 89 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 136

After the completion of the bridge at day 89 the deflections and the bending moments continue

to change. Figure 6.38 and 6.39 show the bending moment distribution and the vertical defor-

mation of the bridge girder at day 90, 100, 1000 and 6000 when the cable forces and support

movement for restricted bending moments in the final construction stage are applied and the

cables are not retensioned. Regarding the deflected shape a fabrication camber that makes the

displacements at node 12, 16, 20 and 22 in the final construction stage to zero is assumed.

In Figure 6.40 and 6.41 the forces for restricted deformations are used. In this case a fabrication

camber is not needed, because the structure has been constrained to achieve a desired geometry.

-5000

-4000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-3000

-2000

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 6.38: Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case I

20

10

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

Figure 6.39: Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 137

-5000

Bending Moment [kNm] -4000

-3000

-2000

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 6.40: Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case II

20

10

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

Figure 6.41: Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 138

The procedure of calculating the unknown load factors considering time effects on materials by

Larsa2000 is similar to the determination by MIDAS/Civil. However, also the time-dependent

construction stage analysis is principally a nonlinear analysis and thus, an adjustment of the ini-

tial cable forces and support jacking is needed to achieve the desired condition. The adjustment

process is identical with the adjustment in the time-independent analysis by Larsa2000.

The bending moment distribution and the deflected shape of the example model under perma-

nent and unit loads in the final construction stage of a time-dependent analysis by Larsa2000

are shown in Figure 6.42 and 6.43.

-31307

-20989 -21656

-14224

-34131

Figure 6.42: Bending moment distribution under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [kNm]

dz= -20.28,

dx=+202.92

57.08

-354.95

-1071.73

-2039.57

-2547.93

Figure 6.43: Vertical deformation under dead load and unit forces at day 89 [mm]

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 139

By applying all unit loads separately to the structure, the influence on the objectives in the final

construction stage is obtained. The resulting influence matrices for the moment (Case I) and

displacement (Case II) restriction are shown below.

+34.9961 −33.2070 +0.9160 +0.2529 −0.8271 +8.0449

+5.7461 +4.8516 +80.2246 +8.1895 −4.0605 +2.2793

−0.7520 +0.0547 −2.0664 +67.5547 +32.9805 +17.3848

Amoment =

−0.0195 −0.0176 −0.1113 −1.2383 +52.9727 +30.9688

−0.0103 −0.0049 −0.0027 −0.0310 −0.0930 +20.7705

+56.5859 +105.4570 −10.8438 +0.6250 +0.4570 +22.0000

−0.12306 +0.12063 −0.09553 −0.01341 +0.00484 −0.01729

+0.25955 −0.17205 +0.89923 +0.26247 +0.03859 +0.06956

+0.53024 −0.33355 +1.98460 +1.17922 +0.47708 +0.28026

Adispl. =

+0.79894 −0.49496 +3.06511 +2.25210 +1.45578 +0.71692

+0.93317 −0.57578 +3.60489 +2.78711 +2.00295 +1.00017

−0.34451 −0.69436 +0.09128 −0.00149 −0.00225 −0.07185

The meaning of the values of these matrices is similar to the definition of the data content of the

influences matrices determined by MIDAS/Civil.

The bending moments [kNm] and displacements [mm] at the selected nodes at day 89 due to

the permanent and construction loads are the following:

−14233.9902 +57.21223

−21085.8262 −356.31371

−31422.4980 −1075.84572

MP = δP =

−21738.3574

−2047.36423

−2435.6084 −2557.68442

−34305.7031 +203.93158

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 140

The constraint vectors for a restricted moment distribution and restricted deformations are given

below (see Table 6.4):

−2350 0

−2600 0

−2500 0

Mdesired = δdesired =

−2700

0

−2000 0

0 0

The initial cable forces and the upward movement of node 22 are calculated by solving the lin-

ear equation. The resulting tension forces and support movement are:

+4340.053 +3967.158

+1034.033 +1181.011

+1836.839 +2131.797

Tmoment = Tdispl =

+2604.358

+2436.725

+3525.036 +3790.335

+23.202 +48.655

Just like in the time-independent analysis these values need to be slightly adjusted to account

for the nonlinear behavior of the structure. The adjusted values are:

+4276.289 +3917.606

+1023.271 +1171.305

+1802.405 +2090.098

Tnew Tnew

m = Tm + ∆Tm = ; d = Td + ∆Td =

+2589.618

+2425.669

+3514.455 +3799.826

+23.199 +40.432

Figures 6.44 to 6.47 illustrate the moment distribution and vertical deflections when the above

calculated adjusted cable forces and the adjusted upward movement of joint 22 are applied.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 141

-2350 -2000

Figure 6.44: Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting bending moments [kNm], Case I

dz=-22.30,

dx= -3.46

Figure 6.45: Vertical deflection at day 89 when restricting bending moments [mm], Case I

-3983

-2403

-1644

-578 -634

620

1731

2387 2356

2701

-401

Figure 6.46: Moment distribution at day 89 when restricting deformations [kNm], Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 142

dz=-22.54,

dx= 0.00

Figure 6.47: Vertical deformation at day 89 when restricting deformations [mm], Case II

After the completion of the bridge at day 89 the deflections and the bending moments continue

to change. Figure 6.48 and 6.49 show the bending moment distribution and the vertical defor-

mation of the bridge girder at day 90, 100, 1000 and 6000 when the cable forces and support

movement for restricted bending moments in the final construction stage are applied. Again a

fabrication camber that makes the displacements at node 12, 16, 20 and 22 in the final construc-

tion stage to zero is assumed.

In Figure 6.50 and 6.51 the forces for restricted deformations are used. Because of the geometry

restriction, a fabrication camber is not needed.

-5000

-4000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-3000

-2000

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 6.48: Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case I

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 143

20.0000

10.0000

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0.0000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-10.0000

-20.0000

-30.0000

-40.0000

-50.0000

Figure 6.49: Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case I

-5000

-4000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-3000

-2000

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 6.50: Redistribution of the girder bending moments after bridge completion, Case II

20

10

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

Figure 6.51: Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 144

6.5.2.3 Summary of the determination of the cable forces and jacking distance in a time-

dependent construction stage analysis

The initial cable forces at the time of installation and the jacking of the right support determined

from the time-dependent construction stage analyses by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 are sum-

marized in Table 6.11. It is visible that the resulting forces determined by the different structural

engineering software programs are of similar magnitude. For both Case I and Case II only small

differences occur that result from the performance of a linear analysis in MIDAS/Civil and a

nonlinear analysis in Larsa2000 and from slight inaccuracies in the determination of creep and

shrinkage effects in both analysis programs as it was found in Chapter 4.4. However, in case

of restricting the bending moments as well as for the restricted deformations the desired final

condition was achieved when the calculated values for the cable forces and the jacking distance

were applied to the structure (Figures 6.34 to 6.37 and 6.44 to 6.47).

Table 6.11: Comparison of the ideal cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support

jacking determined in a time-dependent analysis by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000

Restriction Program Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Moments MIDAS 4170.49 983.72 1726.82 2549.15 3482.84 21.63

(Case I) Larsa 4276.29 1023.27 1802.41 2589.62 3514.46 23.20

Displacements MIDAS 3912.03 1171.99 2063.41 2397.18 3803.30 35.28

(Case II) Larsa 3917.61 1171.31 2090.10 2425.67 3799.83 40.43

Because the unknown load factor function can not be used in a time-dependent analysis, the

solution for the unknown load factors by MIDAS/Civil, as well as the solution by Larsa2000,

was done by manually determining influence matrices and solving linear equations. In MIDAS

the cable forces and support displacement resulting from the solution of the linear equation

exactly caused the target condition in the final construction stage. No iterative adjustment of

the forces was necessary to achieve the desired bending moment distribution or deflected shape,

which verifies the assumption that creep and shrinkage can be treated in a linear manner.

In order to achieve the desired condition using the cable forces and support jacking determined

by Larsa2000, similar to the time-independent analysis, a slight iterative adjustment of the

forces was necessary to compensate for the nonlinear effects. However, including time effects

on materials does not change the level of nonlinearity and still only one adjustment step is

needed to obtain satisfactorily results.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 145

Time-dependent material effects not only need to be considered during the construction pro-

cess, but also after the completion of the bridge. By continuing the construction stage analyses

in MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 until day 6000, it was shown that the bending moments and

deformations due to creep and shrinkage considerably continue to change during service life of

the bridge. In all cases a high increase of the negative moment value at the pylon and a shifting

towards positive bending near the key segment was visible. Concerning the displacements, in

the middle of the main span an increase of up to 40mm occurred, which was mainly caused by

the time-dependent vertical deflection of the top of the pylon. When neglecting the effects of

creep and shrinkage in the pylon, the maximum increase of the girder deflections reduced to

10mm.

However, the behavior of the example model during and after construction in MIDAS/Civil and

Larsa2000 was almost identical. Figure 6.52 and 6.53 show the bending moments and defor-

mations along the bridge girder (Case I) at the end of construction and at day 6000 determined

by MIDAS/Civil and Larsa2000 by comparison. It is visible that the diagrams resulting from

the different analysis programs almost coincide, which verifies the results. The general belief

that creep has the tendency to change the internal forces into the direction of the continuous

beam condition does not apply to the example structure as it will also be the case for most other

cable-stayed bridges. All concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges constructed and loaded in

stages will not behave according to this belief. Different segment ages, different loading ages

and creep and shrinkage effects in the pylon lead to deviant behavior of a structure over time.

-5000

-4000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-3000

-2000

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Larsa2000 - day 90 Larsa2000 - day 6000

Figure 6.52: Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 146

20

10

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

Larsa2000 - day 90 Larsa2000 - day 6000

Figure 6.53: Changes of the vertical deflection of the girder after bridge completion, Case II

6.5.3 Summary of the calculation of the initial cable forces and jacking

distance in a construction stage analyis

The above calculations show that time dependent effects have a significant influence on the

structural behavior of cable-stayed bridges during and after construction. In order to clarify the

concern to take time-dependent effects into account when calculating the initial cable forces,

Tables 6.12 and 6.13 summarize the cable forces that need to be applied at the time of cable

installation and the jacking distance determined in the time-independent and time-dependent

analysis. It is visible that in all cases the values determined in a time-dependent analysis were

higher than those calculated in a time-independent analysis. Generally, the magnification was

less than 25%, but in case of restricting deformations even an increase of 143% occurred for the

jacking distance (Larsa2000).

Table 6.12: Comparison of the cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support jacking

determined in a time-independent and time-dependent analysis by MIDAS/Civil

Case Time-independent/ Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

time-dependent (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Time-independent 3647.10 880.52 1471.47 2425.77 3281.85 21.45

Case I Time-dependent 4170.49 983.72 1726.82 2549.15 3482.84 21.63

Deviation +14.4% +11.7% +17.4% +5.1% +6.1% +0.8%

Time-independent 3750.53 1277.39 2364.82 1065.36 2456.73 −205.22

Case II Time-dependent 3912.03 1171.99 2063.41 2397.18 3803.30 35.28

Time-independent results are wrong (see above) → No comparison

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 147

Table 6.13: Comparison of the cable forces at time of installation and the ideal support jacking

determined in a time-independent and time-dependent analysis by Larsa2000

Case Time-independent/ Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

time-dependent (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Time-independent 3649.07 878.01 1473.01 2436.59 3287.78 21.44

Case I Time-dependent 4276.29 1023.27 1802.41 2589.62 3514.46 23.20

Deviation +17.2% +16.5% +22.4% +6.3% +6.9% +8.2%

Time-independent 3447.85 1042.97 1721.64 2227.10 3375.16 16.64

Case II Time-dependent 3917.61 1171.31 2090.10 2425.67 3799.83 40.43

Deviation +13.6% +12.3% +21.4% +8.9% +12.6% +143%

The deviations in geometry (no precamber) and bending moments of the final structure when

the forces calculated in a time-independent analysis are applied in a time-dependent analysis are

exemplary shown for the Case I-model in MIDAS/Cvil in Figures 6.54 and 6.55. The graphs

clearly show the importance of considering time effects on material when calculating the cable

tension forces.

-6000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-5000

-4000

Cable forces determined in

a time-dependent analysis

-3000

-2000 Cable forces determined in

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 a time-independent analysis

0

1000

2000

Figure 6.54: Final bending moment distribution along the bridge girder, Case I (MIDAS/Civil)

50

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0

Cable forces determined in

-50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

a time-dependent analysis

-100

-150 Cable forces determined in

-200 a time-independent analysis

-250

-300

-350

Figure 6.55: Final vertical deformations of the bridge girder, Case I (MIDAS/Civil)

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 148

stage analysis

In order to demonstrate the effects of second-order theory and large displacements, a time-

dependent construction stage analysis of the example cable-stayed bridge including geometric

nonlinearity is performed. Because in MIDAS/Civil it is not possible to consider nonlinear and

time-dependent effects simultaneously, this is only done by the analysis program Larsa2000.

During the construction stage analysis the same initial cable and jacking forces as determined

in the ”linear” construction stage analysis are applied. The resulting final bending moments and

deformations of the bridge girder determined in the analysis including and not including second-

order and large displacement effects are exemplified for the Case I-model in Figure 6.56 and

6.57. It is visible that the values from both analyses differ only marginal and thus the effects of

second-order theory and large displacements can be neglected in the analysis of the considered

structure. This finding verifies the statement in Chapter 3.3.2 that at least large displacement

effects generally only need to be considered in large cable-stayed bridges having spans of more

than 600m. For small cable stayed bridges, such as the considered example bridge, these effects

are of minor importance and do not need to be taken into account in the design process.

Because cable elements in Larsa2000 do not consider sag effects unless they are divided into

a number of elements, the nonlinear behavior of the cables due to sag was not included in the

presented nonlinear analysis.

-3000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-2000

Neglecting geometric

-1000 nonlinearity

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Including geometric

0 nonlinearity

1000

2000

Figure 6.56: Bending moment distribution along the bridge girder at day 89, Case I (Larsa2000)

25

Vertical Deflection [mm]

0 Neglecting geometric

nonlinearity

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-25 Including geometric

nonlinearity

-50

-75

-100

Figure 6.57: Vertical displacements of the bridge girder at day 89, Case I (Larsa2000)

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 149

As already described in detail in Chapter 5, unavoidable errors in cable tension forces, geometry

of girder and pylon, dead load, stiffness of members, etc. may possibly cause unexpected dis-

crepancies between the actual and theoretical state of a cable-stayed bridge during construction.

It is hardly ever the case that the erection process exactly follows the predicted construction

sequence.

In the following, different error factors are introduced into the analysis model of the example

cable-stayed bridge and the construction stage analysis of the modified model is taken as a sim-

ulation of the actual construction process on site. Based on the discrepancies in geometry and

cable tension forces between the theoretical predictions (original model) and the actual mea-

surements (modified model), cable force and deck elevation adjustments are computed. The

goal is to achieve the desired final dead load condition without retensioning already installed

cables. The method that is used to obtain sufficient structural amendments follows the construc-

tion control procedure described in Chapter 5.4.

Because the functionality of the structural engineering programs Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil

has already been tested and proved during the calculation of the initial cable forces and jack-

ing distance in Section 6.4 and 6.5, in order to limit the length of this report, the following

calculations are only performed by MIDAS/Civil. They could similarly be performed by the

analysis program Larsa2000, but due to the fact that a construction stage analysis in Larsa2000

is principally a nonlinear analysis the application of influence matrices is easier when using

MIDAS/Civil.

For the example model it is aspired to achieve a desired final geometry and bending moment

distribution simultaneously. Therefore, the initial cable forces and support jacking determined

for a restricted bending moments (Case I) are used for the construction stage analysis and the

segments are cambered so as to achieve a zero vertical displacement at the anchorage points

of cable 3 to 5 and at the end of the bridge. According to Section 6.5.2.1 the cable forces and

jacking distance that need to be applied to achieve the desired condition are:

Table 6.14: Cable forces and jacking distance applied in the construction stage analysis

Load: Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Jack Up

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (mm)

Ideal force: 4170.55 983.94 1728.72 2549.19 3482.84 21.63

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 150

The angles that have to be introduced at the joint between two segments in order to achieve a

zero vertical displacement at the anchorage points of cable 3 to 5 and at the end of the bridge can

be evaluated from the fabrication camber graph. Because a zero vertical displacement is desired

at the control nodes (12, 16, 20 and 22), the fabrication camber results as the curve between

the up-side-down final displacements of these joints between segments (see Figure 6.35). The

final displacements of the girder segments 1 and 2 are small and thus, these segments are not

precambered. The resulting fabrication camber is given below:

140

120 122.12

100

Camber [mm]

95.68

80

60

48.34

40

20 18.68

0

8 12 16 20

Node number

The initial cable forces and the precamber data are applied to the analysis model and a time

dependent construction stage analysis is performed by MIDAS/Civil. The resulting cable forces

and joint deformations of the structure in the construction stages CS01 to CS14 are given in

Table 6.15 and 6.16. These values provide a reference for the real construction sequence.

Stage Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN )

CS01: - - - - -

CS02: - 983.94 - - -

CS03: - 2202.55 1728.72 - -

CS04: - 3605.38 4691.88 - -

CS05: - 3777.87 4786.54 - -

CS06: 4170.55 1179.37 5334.45 - -

CS07: 3939.30 1514.18 2288.31 2549.19 -

CS08: 7693.53 2159.75 3416.46 8302.48 -

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 151

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN )

CS09: 7693.53 2159.75 3416.46 8302.48 -

CS10: 7640.55 2172.52 2324.64 3311.41 3482.84

CS11: 10433.84 2684.41 2340.40 4405.38 5542.86

CS12: 8742.40 2380.94 2180.53 3652.39 4450.47

CS13: 8878.13 2395.58 2419.29 3763.66 4377.18

CS14: 8747.13 2373.26 2424.54 3713.69 4264.65

Vertical deflection Horizontal

deflection

Stage Node 4 Node 8 Node 12 Node 16 Node 20 Node 22 Node 106

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

CS01: −7.54 −1.26 −28.62 - - - 0.00

CS02: +0.16 −2.09 −67.54 - - - −60.22

CS03: −16.66 −2.07 +71.60 - - - −41.00

CS04: +21.61 −3.16 −84.07 - - - +55.32

CS05: +27.56 −3.41 −98.75 −260.94 - - +69.37

CS06: −4.18 −4.21 −20.70 −120.81 - - −49.19

CS07: −14.22 −4.25 +58.29 +165.55 - - −51.68

CS08: −3.55 −5.81 −9.24 −113.06 - - −11.21

CS09: −3.55 −5.81 −10.41 −113.06 −289.49 - −11.28

CS10: −4.75 −6.43 +16.13 +47.07 +118.44 - −10.83

CS11: +2.71 +7.43 −12.17 −65.75 −174.13 - +18.68

CS12: −2.05 −6.89 +8.32 +6.75 −14.38 −28.77 +0.97

CS13: −1.79 −7.37 −0.86 −4.74 −14.71 −21.63 +3.12

CS14: −2.25 −7.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 +1.86

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 152

Since field measurements of the real construction process of the considered cable-stayed bridge

were not available, the actual erection of the structure is simulated in a construction stage analy-

sis by MIDAS/Civil that contains different error factors. The error factors that are incorporated

in the analysis model are shown in below:

Table 6.17: Error factors considered in the simulation of the actual erection process

Type of error Deviation from original input data

Moment of inertia of girder −0.12 m4

Modulus of elasticity of cables −3.0 · 107 kN/m2

Unit weight of concrete +1 kN/m3

Weight of derrick crane +200 kN

Relative humidity −10 %

Length of girder segment 3 −10 mm

Girder segment 5 is erected with an error pro- −20 mm

ducing an extra vertical displacement

During the ”real” erection process the deck elevations and the horizontal displacements of the

pylon as well as the tension forces of the cables are systematically measured in each erection

stage. The deck elevations are measured at the ends of the previously installed segments and

the horizontal displacement of the pylon is measured at the top end.

The temperature is assumed to remain constant during the erection process and monitoring of

the stresses in the girder and the pylon is not performed. The field measurements as well as the

comparison with the theoretical values, the forecast of future evolution of the structure and the

adjustment of deck elevations and cable forces during construction are performed in a stage by

stage construction control in the following section.

As explained in chapter 5.4 the construction control consists of four tasks. The simulation of

the construction process has already been performed and the theoretical deformations and cable

tension forces are known. The other three steps of construction control are conducted in a stage

by stage consideration in the following.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 153

can be performed timely during erection. In the following the error identification and the sub-

sequent construction adjustment are performed on the basis of discrepancies between the actual

and theoretical geometry of the structure in a given construction stage, while the tension forces

of the stay cables are observed for the references only but not for the controlling.

The discrepancies between the actual and theoretical deformations in construction stage CS01

and CS02 are given below:

Table 6.18: Comparison of theoretical and actual deformations in CS01 and CS02

CS01 CS02

Node Prediction Actual Error Prediction Actual Error

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Node 4 -7.54 -8.96 -1.42 +0.16 -0.64 -0.80

Node 8 -1.26 -1.31 -0.05 -2.09 -2.26 -0.17

Node 12 -28.62 -37.38 -8.76 -67.54 -85.42 -17.88

Node 106 (dx) 0.00 0.00 0.00 -60.22 -60.22 0.00

The initial tension force of cable 1 in construction stage 2 is equal in both the theoretical and

actual construction stage analysis. Thus, an error in cable force can be ruled out as being re-

sponsible for the discrepancies in geometry.

2. Error identification:

As explained in Chapter 5.4.3 the error identification is performed by assuming several pat-

terns of typical structural errors and approximating the actual error by their linear combination.

However, it was stated that the aim of an economic cable adjustment is not to know the accurate

structural error, but to predict the response of the structure in future. According to Fujisawa [13]

a good approximation of the final condition may also be reach if the assumed structural error

patterns are not components of the actual error. Therefore, the error patterns that are assumed

in the following are slightly different from the real error factors.

The error patterns that are assumed to be responsible for the discrepancies in the first two con-

struction stages are the following:

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 154

(affects creep and shrinkage of concrete)

In a linear analysis an error in the stiffness of the stay cables does not affect the geometry of

the structure in the first two construction stages. This error pattern is checked separately in

construction stage 3.

The error influence matrix, Aerr , of which the columns represent the responses to the errors 1

to 5 is given below:

+0.64 +0.05 −0.74 0.00 0.00

0.00 +0.11 −0.11 0.00 0.00

+4.12 +0.18 −4.70 0.00 +10.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Aerr =

−0.36 +0.06 −1.06 +0.21 0.00

0.00 +0.13 −0.16 +0.04 0.00

+5.78 +0.19 −6.72 +1.28 +10.00

0.00 +5.47 0.00 0.00 0.00

In this matrix the first four rows represent the changes in deformation of node 4, 8, 12 and 106

in CS01 [mm] and the last four rows the changes in deformation of node 4, 8, 12 and 106 in

CS02 [mm] due to the error patterns of unit.

According to Chapter 5.4.3 the vector of the multipliers for respective error patterns can be

calculated as:

DT = −1.42 −0.05 −8.76 0.00 −0.80 −0.17 −17.88 0.00

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 155

Neglecting the weight of respective errors in the objective value, the multiplication factors that

minimize the difference between the actual and approximated errors are:

−1.664

0.000

X=

+0.477

−4.213

+0.034

Hence, the following changes have to be made to the input data of the theoretical analysis to

predict the future evolution of the bridge:

Table 6.19: Changes of input data of the theoretical analysis model after error identification

in CS01 and CS02

Error Type of error Original Change of Modified

value value value

1 Stiffness of the girder (Egirder ) [kN/m2 ] 3.3282 · 107 −16.64% 2.7744 · 107

2 Stiffness of the pylon (Epylon ) [kN/m2 ] 3.3282 · 107 0.00% 3.3282 · 107

3 Dead load of the bridge girder [kN/m] 109.50 +4.77% 114.72

4 Compressive strength of concrete fck 35.00 −42.13% 20.25

[M N/m2 ]

5 Error in elevation of girder 3 [mm] 18.68 +0.34 19.02

3. Prediction of the future evolution of the bridge and adjustment of the cable forces,

jacking distance and deck elevations:

When the above calculated modifications are incorporated in the analysis model a forecast of the

final condition of the structure can be made. For the considered cable-stayed bridge the bending

moment distribution of an equivalent continuous beam is desired in the final construction stage.

A zero displacement can be achieved simultaneously by adjusting the precamber of the bridge.

Thus, a prediction of the bending moment distribution in the final construction stage is made

and then the cable forces and the support jacking are adjusted so as to reduce the residual error

between the final bending moment distribution and the desired bending moment distribution.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 156

If the original cable forces are used the bending moments at node 4,8,12,16,20 and 101 result

to:

−3381.36

−3563.71

−3434.25

Mf inal = −3706.05

−2227.92

+2758.98

Thus, the vector of discrepancies between the desired condition and the forecast is:

−2350.00 −3381.36 +1031.36

−2600.00 −3563.71 +963.71

−2500.00 −3434.25

Df inal = Mdesired − Mf inal = = +934.25

−

−2700.00 −3706.05 +1006.05

−2000.00 −2227.92 +227.92

0.00 +2758.98 −2758.98

By separately increasing the tension forces of cable 1, 3, 4, and 5 by 10 kN and the jacking

distance by 1mm a modified influence matrix can be determined of which the columns represent

the changes in bending moments at the control points due to a unit change of the cable forces

and a unit upward movement of joint 22. Because cable 2 has already been installed and a

retensioning shall be avoided a unit variation of the tension force of cable 2 is not considered.

The resulting influence matrix is:

+33.88 +1.35 +0.25 −0.54 +6.99

+4.25 +82.38 +6.16 −4.29 +0.89

−0.43 −1.49 +67.16 +29.47 +13.93

Amoment = +0.05 +0.02 −0.92 +52.53 +27.74

+0.01 +0.01 +0.03 +0.05 +19.62

The multiplication factors that minimize the residual discrepancies between the desired condi-

tion and the actual final state can be calculated according to Equation (6.2).

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 157

When neglecting the weight matrices, the resulting multiplication factors are:

+38.847

+9.117

X=

+6.377

+10.339

+16.871

Hence, the following cable and jacking force adjustments need to be made to achieve a bending

moment distribution in the final construction stage that differs as less as possible from the

desired bending moment distribution:

Table 6.20: Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification

in CS01 and CS02

Force Original value Additional value Modified value

Cable 1 [kN] 4170.55 +388.47 4559.02

Cable 2 [kN] 983.94 - -

Cable 3 [kN] 1728.72 +91.17 1819.89

Cable 4 [kN] 2549.19 +63.77 2612.96

Cable 5 [kN] 3482.84 +103.39 3586.23

Jacking distance [mm] 21.63 +16.87 38.50

The bending moment distribution and vertical displacements that are reached in the final con-

struction stage when using the above calculated cable forces in the modified analysis model are

illustrated in Figure 6.59 and 6.60.

Figure 6.59: Forecast of the final bending moment distribution after adjustment in CS02

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 158

Figure 6.60: Forecast of the final vertical deflection after adjustment in CS02

Figure 6.60 shows the vertical deflection of the bridge girder when no precamber is applied to

the structure. In order to achieve a zero vertical displacement at the anchorage points of cable

3 to 5 and at the end of the bridge the original fabrication camber illustrated in Figure 6.58 has

to be modified. Figure 6.61 shows the original designed camber data and the required changes

due to the assumed error factors.

150 144.03

125 122.12

110.99

Camber [mm]

100 95.68 22

75

52.15

50 Original fabrication camber

48.34

19.02

25 Required fabrication camber

18.28

0 0 Actual fabrication camber after

adjustment in CS02

8 12 16 20

Node number

The required fabrication camber is the curve between the up-side-down final displacements of

joint 12, 16, 20 and 22 as visible in Figure 6.60. The original fabrication camber basically

equates the design camber data shown in Figure 6.58. The only difference is that the real angle

of girder 3 is slightly bigger than in the design camber data. It was found from the error identi-

fication that girder 3 was installed with an angle producing an additional vertical displacement

of 0.34mm (see Table 6.19). Thus, the ordinate at joint 12 of the original fabrication camber is

0.34mm higher than in the design fabrication camber.

Girder 3 is already installed and therefore, no changes in elevation can be applied to this seg-

ment. Only the camber of the remaining girder segments can be adjusted to achieve a zero

displacement in the final structure. The adjusted fabrication camber equates the original cam-

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 159

ber data at node 12 and equates the required fabrication camber at node 16, 20 and 22.

The adjusted cable forces and jacking distance as well as the installation angles of the segments

that have not been installed yet are not only applied to the theoretical analysis, but also to the

real construction (analysis containing the real errors). Then the construction of the structure

proceeds to the next stage.

In construction stage 3 the second cable (cable 3) is installed and tensioned to its adjusted initial

cable force. In a linear construction stage analysis the cable stiffness does not affect the behav-

ior of this cable, because the initial pretension force is applied as an external force, i.e. the

tension force of cable 3 remains unchanged as the initial pretension force during construction

stage 3. However, cable 2 was installed in the previous stage and thus, the initial pretension

force in this cable may reduce or increase due to the deformation of the support structure based

on its stiffness. Hence, in contrast to the first two construction stages the structural behavior of

the bridge in construction stage 3 is affected by the stiffness of the stay cables. Assuming the

error factors determined above are correct, based on the actual and theoretical deformations in

construction stage 3 the error in cable stiffness is investigated separately.

The discrepancies between the actual and theoretical deformations in construction stage CS03

are given below:

Node Prediction Actual Error

(mm) (mm) (mm)

Node 4 -22.05 -21.37 +0.68

Node 8 -2.46 -2.24 +0.22

Node 12 +82.70 +83.71 +1.01

Node 106 (dx) -44.18 -38.48 +5.70

The theoretical values in Table 6.21 are the result from the analysis of the original model con-

taining the error factors calculated in CS01 and CS02. The actual values come from the analysis

model containing the ”real” errors. In both models the above calculated adjusted cable forces

are used.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 160

Regarding the cable forces, the tension force in cable 3 is identical in both models and the ac-

tual force in cable 2 (2228.1 kN) is lower than the theoretical force in cable 2 (2263.4 kN). The

difference is small and therefore tolerable, but it may be an indication for a variation in cable

stiffness.

2. Error identification:

Because an error in stiffness of the stay cables could not be considered in CS01 and CS02, this

error pattern is considered separately in this construction stage. The influence of a change in

cable stiffness by 10% on the deformation of node 4, 8, 12 and 106 is:

+0.45

+0.00

Aerr =

−0.77

−2.09

The procedure to determine the multiplication factor is similar to the procedure in CS01 and

CS02. However, in this case the calculation is much easier, because only one error pattern is

taken into account. The resulting multiplication factor is:

X = − 2.399

Hence, the stiffness of the stay cables has to be reduced by 23,99% which leads to a modulus

of elasticity of the cable of 1.5962 · 108 kN/m2 instead of 2.1000 · 108 kN/m2 .

3. Prediction of the future evolution of the bridge and adjustment of the cable forces,

jacking distance and deck elevations:

When the above calculated reduction in stiffness of the stay cables is incorporated in the analysis

model, the predicted bending moments at node 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 101 in the final construction

stage are:

−2151.99

−3222.59

−3553.46

Mf inal =

−3155.95

−1964.75

+2610.25

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 161

Thus, the vector of discrepancies between the desired condition and the forecast is:

−2350.00 −2151.99 −198.01

−2600.00 −3222.59 +622.59

−2500.00 −3553.46 +1053.46

Df inal = Mdesired − Mf inal =

− =

−2700.00 −3155.95

+455.95

−2000.00 −1964.75 −35.25

0.00 +2610.25 −2610.25

By separately increasing the tension forces of cable 1, 4 and, 5 by 10 kN and the jacking

distance by 1mm (cable 2 and 3 have already been installed) the modified influence matrix can

be determined as follows:

+32.58 +1.20 −0.54 +6.48

+6.59 +11.31 −2.93 +2.18

−0.63 +68.60 +34.90 +14.90

Amoment = +0.05 −0.90 +53.31 +25.18

+0.01 +0.03 +0.04 +16.45

The multiplication factors that minimize the residual discrepancies between the desired condi-

tion and the actual final state can be calculated according to Equation (6.2). The results are:

+25.928

+12.078

X=

+0.190

+17.487

Hence, the following adjustments need to be made to minimize the residual error between the

bending moment distribution in the final construction stage and the desired condition:

Table 6.22: Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS03

Force Original value Additional value Modified value

(after CS02) (after CS03)

Cable 1 [kN] 4559.02 +259.28 4818.30

Cable 2 [kN] 983.94 - -

Cable 3 [kN] 1819.89 - -

Cable 4 [kN] 2612.96 +120.78 2733.74

Cable 5 [kN] 3586.23 +1.90 3588.13

Jacking distance [mm] 38.50 +17.49 55.99

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 162

The bending moment distribution and vertical displacements (no precamber) that are reached in

the final construction stage when using the above calculated cable forces in the modified analy-

sis model are illustrated in Figure 6.62 and 6.63.

Figure 6.62: Forecast of the final bending moment distribution after adjustment in CS03

Figure 6.63: Forecast of the final vertical deflection after adjustment in CS03

In order to achieve a zero or at least small vertical displacement at the anchorage points of cable

3 to 5 and at the end of the bridge, the fabrication camber of CS02 has to be modified. Figure

6.64 shows the camber data determined in CS02 and the required changes due to the reduction

in stiffness of the stay cables in CS03. Because girder segment 3 has already been installed, no

changes in camber can be applied to this segment. The actual camber curve equates the original

curve at node 12 and the required curve at node 16, 20 and 22.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 163

156.63

150

144.03

125 120.87

110.99

Camber [mm]

100 22

55.95

(after CS02)

50 52.15 Required fabrication camber

19.02

25

Actual fabrication camber after

18.27 adjustment in CS03

0 0

8 12 16 20

Node number

The discrepancies between the actual and theoretical deformations in construction stage CS04

and CS05 are given below:

Table 6.23: Comparison of theoretical and actual deformations in CS04 and CS05

CS01 CS02

Node Prediction Actual Error Prediction Actual Error

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Node 4 +20.47 +23.48 +3.01 +30.68 +32.55 +1.87

Node 8 -3.52 -3.40 +0.13 -3.90 -3.71 +0.19

Node 12 -99.98 -100.17 -0.19 -129.85 -125.26 +4.59

Node 16 - - - -338.39 -323.62 +14.77

Node 106 (dx) +69.83 +71.66 +1.83 +96.09 +93.63 -2.46

The theoretical and actual cable forces construction stage 5 are given in Table 6.24. The actual

values of both installed cables are about 10% higher than the theoretical prediction (analysis

model including identified errors), which is an indication that the assumed structural parameters

do not correspond with the actual structural parameters.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 164

Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN )

Prediction: - 3324.74 4666.47 - -

Actual value: - 3625.59 5150.21 - -

Deviation: - +9.05% +10.37% - -

2. Error identification:

Because the deviations between the theoretical and actual deformations and cable forces in

the construction stages 4 and 5 are significant, all error factors that have been detected in the

previous construction stages are again taken as potential error patterns in the following. Only

the stiffness of the pylon which was found to be correct is not checked again. In addition to

the previously assumed error factors, the variation of the weight of the derrick crane is also

assumed to be a component of the actual error. Thus, the error patterns that are assumed to be

responsible for the discrepancies in the fourth and fifth construction stage are the following:

The error influence matrix, Aerr , of which the columns represent the additional deformation at

node 4, 8, 12 and 106 in CS04 and at node 4, 8, 12, 16 and 106 in CS05 to the unit errors 1 to 6

is given below:

+0.03 −0.88 −1.44 +1.02 +0.27 0.00

−0.01 0.00 −0.20 −0.03 +0.06 0.00

+6.30 −1.02 −8.98 −4.17 +1.23 0.00

−3.68 −3.24 0.00 +2.43 +0.55 0.00

Aerr =

+0.03 −1.06 +2.11 +1.23 −0.21 0.00

0.00 0.00 −0.27 −0.03 +0.08 0.00

+7.57 −1.53 −25.09 −4.75 +2.55 0.00

+17.21 +2.64 −62.38 −10.16 +5.82 +10.00

−4.50 −3.41 +9.15 +2.96 −0.70 0.00

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 165

The multiplication factors of the error patterns 1 to 6 are calculated as described above. The

resulting values are:

+1.147

+0.701

−0.062

X= +2.684

+3.203

−0.208

Hence, the following changes have to be made to the input data of the theoretical analysis to

predict the future evolution of the bridge:

Table 6.25: Changes of input data of the theoretical analysis model after error identification

in CS04 and CS05

Original Change of Modified

Error Type of error value value value

(after CS03) (after CS05)

1 Stiffness of the cables (Ecable ) [kN/m2 ] 1.5962 · 108 +11.47% 1.7793 · 108

2 Stiffness of the girder (Egirder ) [kN/m2 ] 2.7744 · 107 +7.01% 2.9689 · 107

3 Dead load of the bridge girder [kN/m] 114.72 −0.62% 114.01

4 Weight of derrick crane [kN ] 750.00 +26.84% 951.30

5 Compressive strength of concrete fck 20.25 +32.03% 26.73

[M N/m2 ]

6 Error in elevation of girder 4 [mm] 55.95 −2.08 53.87

3. Prediction of the future evolution of the bridge and adjustment of the cable forces,

jacking distance and deck elevations:

When the above calculated modifications are incorporated in the analysis model, a prediction

of the future evolution can be made. Then, similar to the amendments in the construction stage

CS02 and CS03, appropriate adjustments of the stay cable forces that have not been installed

yet can be calculated and the camber data can be adjusted to achieve the desired geometry of

the structure in the final construction stage. As the procedure to determine the adjustments

was already shown in detail in the previous adjustment calculation, in the following only the

resulting cable forces, jacking distance and camber data are presented.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 166

Table 6.26: Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS05

Force Original value Additional value Modified value

(after CS05) (after CS09)

Cable 1 [kN] 4818.30 −54.08 4764.22

Cable 2 [kN] 983.94 - -

Cable 3 [kN] 1819.89 - -

Cable 4 [kN] 2733.74 +9.13 2742.87

Cable 5 [kN] 3588.13 +124.10 3712.23

Jacking distance [mm] 55.99 −15.00 40.99

The actual camber curve is illustrated in Figure 6.65. It is visible that the required elevation

of girder segment 3 and 4 differs from the actual elevation. However, because these segments

have already been installed their precamber can not be changed anymore. Only the remaining

segments can be cambered so as to achieve the desired geometry.

156.63

150

127.27

125 120.87

Camber [mm]

100 98.23

53.87 (after CS03)

50 45.94 Required fabrication camber

19.02

25 Actual fabrication camber after

15.45 adjustment in CS05

0 0

8 12 16 20

Node number

The discrepancies between the actual and theoretical deformations and cable forces in construc-

tion stage CS06 to CS08 were within tolerable limits. They are not presented here. The differ-

ences between the actual deformations and cable forces and those expected from the theoretical

analysis in construction stage 9 are given in Tables 6.27 and ??.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 167

Node Prediction Actual Error

(mm) (mm) (mm)

Node 4 -5.23 -5.88 -0.65

Node 8 -6.54 -6.42 +0.12

Node 12 -17.06 -13.84 +3.22

Node 16 -152.19 -144.98 +7.21

Node 20 -385.60 -399.04 -13.44

Node 106 (dx) -4.58 -5.83 -1.25

Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5

(kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN ) (kN )

Prediction: 8371.63 2138.89 3722.46 6745.43 -

Actual value: 8383.70 2142.27 3686.54 6777.96 -

Deviation: +0.14% +0.16% -0.96% +0.48% -

2. Error identification:

In construction stage 9, five different error patterns were assumed to be responsible for the

discrepancies in geometry. The multiplication factors have been calculated by the procedure

explained above. The changes to the input data of the theoretical analysis model are shown

below:

Table 6.29: Changes of input data of the theoretical analysis model after error identification

in CS09

Original Change of Modified

Error Type of error value value value

(after CS05) (after CS09)

1 Stiffness of the cables (Ecable ) [kN/m2 ] 1.7793 · 108 −2.62% 1.7327 · 108

2 Stiffness of the girder (Egirder ) [kN/m2 ] 2.9689 · 107 −1.48% 2.9250 · 107

3 Weight of derrick crane [kN ] 951.3 −0.93% 942.45

4 Compressive strength of concrete fck 26.73 +9.58% 29.29

[M N/m2 ]

5 Error in elevation of girder 4 [mm] 98.23 −24.15 74.08

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 168

jacking distance and deck elevations:

When the above calculated modifications are incorporated in the analysis model, a prediction of

the future evolution is made and appropriate adjustments of the tension force in the remaining

cable 5 and the jacking distance are calculated. Based on the predicted deflected shape in the

final construction stage the camber data is adjusted. The resulting cable forces are presented in

Table 6.30 and the actual fabrication camber is illustrated in Figure 6.66.

Table 6.30: Cable and jacking force adjustments after error identification in CS09

Force Original value Additional value Modified value

(after CS02) (after CS03)

Cable 1 [kN] 4764.22 - -

Cable 2 [kN] 983.94 - -

Cable 3 [kN] 1819.89 - -

Cable 4 [kN] 2742.87 - -

Cable 5 [kN] 3712.23 −14.89 3697.34

Jacking distance [mm] 40.99 0.00 40.99

150

125 127.27 22

106.03

Camber [mm]

100

80.82

75

74.08 Original fabrication camber

53.87 (after CS05)

50

Required fabrication camber

35.86

25 19.02

Actual fabrication camber

11.40 after adjustment in CS09

0 0

8 12 16 20

Node number

In the construction stages CS10 and CS14 no further adjustments are made. The discrepancies

of the deformations and cable forces between the theoretical predictions and the actual values

are in tolerable limits. Only the vertical deflection of the end of the bridge needs to be slightly

adjusted which is done by an additional jacking force in the final construction stage. The exact

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 169

upward movement of joint 22 that is necessary to achieve a zero vertical displacement at the

end of the bridge is measured (taken from the simulation of the real construction) just before

completion of the bridge.

In the final construction stage before jacking the right support, the vertical deflection of node

22 in the real structure is −50.55 mm. From the theoretical analysis a jacking distance of

+40.99 mm was predicted. Thus, in order to achieve a zero vertical displacement at the end

of the bridge the support movement needs to be increased by 9.56 mm. The resulting bending

moments and deformations of the example cable-stayed bridge after completion are presented

in the following section.

During the real construction process the girder segments are installed with the angle given in

the graph of the actual fabrication camber. In the error identification it was found that among

other patterns in some construction stages an error in elevation of the installed segment was re-

sponsible for the discrepancies in geometry. For the theoretical analysis this error was assumed

to be true and was included in the camber data. However, in the real construction apart from

the additional vertical deflection of girder 5, no installation inaccuracy occurred. The segments

were installed with the angle given in the camber graph which was valid at the time of segment

installation and the elevation was not modified later on. Thus, the final theoretical camber data

slightly differs from the final real precamber of the bridge. Both curves are shown in Figure

6.67.

150

125 111.92

Camber [mm]

100 106.03

79.97

75 74.08

55.61

50 53.87

25 19.02 Real precamber

18.68 Theoretical precamber

0

8 12 16 20

Node number

The final moment distribution and the deflected shape of the real structure after all adjustments

in cable and jacking forces are applied are illustrated in Figure 6.68 and 6.69. The precamber of

the segments was not applied in the analysis by MIDAS/Civil. Thus, the camber data given in

Figure 6.67 need to be added to the vertical deflections of the bridge girder to achieve the real

final girder deformation.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 170

Figure 6.68: Final bending moment distribution of the real structure after adjustment

(dx=+4.53)

Figure 6.69: Final vertical displacements of the real structure after adjustment

From these figures it is visible that the bending moment distribution as well as the deflected

shape of the real structure is close to the desired final condition. An almost zero bending mo-

ment at the base of the pylon and evenly distributed bending moments along the bridge are

reached. The vertical displacement at the right end of the bridge equates the value given in the

fabrication camber and thus, a zero displacement is achieved at the end of the cantilever. At the

other nodes of the structure the vertical deflections do not vanish, but they are small enough to

be tolerated. In order to get an idea about the deflected shape of the whole bridge, Figure 6.70

shows the vertical deformation of the bridge girder when the precamber is applied. They are

compared to the results from the original analysis.

Figure 6.70 shows that the maximum vertical displacement in the main span of the girder is

less than 20mm. This maximum deflection is an upward deformation at node 16 which was

most probably caused by an inappropriate precamber of girder segment 4. Apparently, at the

time of installing girder 4 the prediction of the final vertical displacements was not accurate

enough. One reason may be the fact that, for example, the estimated modulus of elasticity

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 171

of the cables in CS03 was 1.5962 · 108 kN/m2 which is 11.32% lower than the actual cable

stiffness (Ereal = 1.8 · 108 kN/m2 ). Furthermore, it was found in CS02 that the compressive

strength of concrete was 42.13% less than in the original model, which most probably caused

an incorrect prediction of the effects of creep and shrinkage. The installation angle of girder 4

was determined based on these inaccurate input data which may be the reason for the higher

discrepancies in geometry in this region. Before installing the subsequent segments the input

data of theoretical model were updated again and better predictions of the future evolution of

the structure could be made. Thus, the camber data of these segments could be improved before

their installation.

However, this inaccuracy in the early construction stages caused an additional upward move-

ment in the middle of the main span, which will reduce due to the effects of creep and shrinkage

during service life of the bridge anyway. Figure 6.71 shows the vertical deflection of the original

analysis and the real construction at day 6000. At this time almost all time-dependent deforma-

tions have occurred and the final shape of the structure is reached. It is visible that the deformed

shape of both structures looks similar at this time.

20

Vertical deformation [mm]

10

0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-20

-30

-40

-50

20

Vertical deformation [mm]

10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

Figure 6.71: Vertical displacements after adjustment including precamber at day 6000

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 172

During the construction of the example cable-stayed bridge, adjustments of the cable forces

have been made to reduce the residual discrepancies between the actual final dead load condition

and the desired state. However, to ensure the safety of the structure not only the internal forces

and deformations in the bridge girder and the pylon need to be controlled, but also the cable

tension forces.

It was explained in Chapter 5.4.4.1 that it is generally impossible to achieve the desired deck

profile/bending moment distribution and the cable forces calculated in the original stage analysis

simultaneously. The presented solution was to turn the cable forces over a suitable range to

reduce the effects of error factors on the bridge deck and the pylon. Anyhow, the stay cable

forces need to remain within tolerable limits to ensure that the cable properties are sufficient to

withstand the applied loads.

The initial cable tension forces at the time of installation and the cables forces in the complete

structure in the real construction and the original analysis are given in Table 6.31. It can be seen

that the differences between the initial cable forces in the original analysis and the real erection

are within ±15% and the deviations of the final cable forces are less than 5% which is tolerable.

Table 6.31: Comparison of the cable forces in the original analysis and the actual erection

Classification Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5

(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

Initial Original analysis 983.94 1728.72 4170.55 2549.19 3482.84

cable Real erection 983.94 1819.89 4764.22 2742.87 3697.34

forces Deviation ±0.00% +5.27% +14.23% +7.60% 6.16%

Final Original analysis 8747.13 2373.26 2424.54 3713.69 4264.65

cable Real erection 9036.10 2302.65 2525.48 3849.58 4278.67

forces Deviation +3.30% -2.98% +4.16% +3.66% +0.33%

During the construction of the example cable-stayed bridge, different errors in the input data

of the theoretical analysis model were detected. These errors do not necessarily correspond to

the real errors. In Table 6.32 the input data containing the error factors that were introduced in

the analysis model simulating the real construction process are compared with the input data

containing the error patterns that were identified in the respective construction stages.

It is visible that the identified error patterns in some cases correspond to the components of the

real error. The detected values of the girder stiffness (E · I), the stiffness of the stay cables, the

dead load of the girder and the weight of the derrick crane are within ±5% of the real values.

However, there are additional error factors in the real structure that have not been identified

such as the difference in the weight of the pylon (unit weight of concrete influences the weight

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 173

of all concrete members), the relative humidity and the discrepancy in length of segment 3.

Instead, error patterns such as the compressive strength of concrete and installation inaccuracy

of segment 3 and 4, have been identified that were not responsible for the discrepancies.

Furthermore, some of the variations in structural input parameters have not been identified

correctly (±5%) until the ninth construction stage or even until the end of construction. The

additional displacement that was introduced in the structure due to an inaccurate installation of

girder 5 was detected to be 21% higher than in reality. Hence, the error identification during the

construction of the example model pointed out some error patterns, but the approximated error

did not exactly coincide with the real error.

Table 6.32: Input data of the real structure and the theoretical analysis model

Real Theoretical analysis model

structure CS01 CS02 CS03 CS05 CS09

Moment of inertia of girder [m4 ] 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Modulus of elasticity of the girder 3.33 3.33 2.77 2.77 2.97 2.93

[107 m4 ]

Modulus of elasticity of cables 1.80 2.1 2.1 1.59 1.78 1.73

[108 kN/m2 ]

Unit weight of concrete [kN/m3 ] 26.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0

Dead load of the girder [kN/m] 113.88 109.50 114.72 114.72 114.01 114.01

Weight of derrick crane [kN] 950.0 750.0 750.0 750.0 951.3 942.5

Relative humidity 60% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Compressive strength of concrete 35.00 35.00 20.25 20.25 26.73 29.29

[M N/m2 ]

Length of girder segment 3 [m] 15.99 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00

Installation inaccuracy [mm]:

Girder 3 - +0.34 +0.34 +0.34 +0.34 +0.34

Girder 4 - - - - -2.08 -2.08

Girder 5 -20.00 - - - - -24.15

However, even if the identified error patterns did not exactly coincide with the actual error, it

was possible to satisfactorily predict the response of the structure in the final construction stage

and determine appropriate adjustments. It was shown above that the final bending moments and

deformations of the bridge girder of the real structure were within tolerable limits so that no

further retensioning of the stay cables was needed after the completion of the bridge.

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 174

In order to clarify the improvement of the final dead load condition due to the cable force,

jacking and deck elevation adjustments during construction and to point out what would have

happened if no adjustments would have been made, Figures 6.72 and 6.73 show the final bend-

ing moment distribution and deflected shape of the bridge resulting from the the real analysis

including the errors with and without adjustments during erection. Additionally, the values

from the original analysis (desired condition) and the results from the continuously adjusted

theoretical analysis (prediction) are included.

It is visible that the resulting bending moments and particularly the vertical deflections of the

cantilever in the real structure are not acceptable when no adjustments are made during con-

struction. In this case a complete adjustment in the final construction stage is necessary to

achieve an appropriate deck profile. However, when adjusting the cable forces in the final con-

struction stage to achieve a desired geometry the bending moments need to be controlled as

well to avoid the development of excessively high stresses in the bridge girder.

-5000

-4000

Bending Moment [kNm]

-3000

-2000

-1000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Original analysis Real construction, adjusted Prediction, adjusted Real construction, not adjusted

20

-20 0

Vertical deformation [mm]

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-60

-100

-140

-180

-220

-260

original analysis Real construction, adjusted Prediction, adjusted Real construction, not adjusted

CHAPTER 6. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 175

Moreover, Figure 6.72 and 6.73 show that, even if the error patterns were partly incorrect, the

analysis model including the identified errors gave a good approximation of the real behavior of

the structure. The bending moment distribution resulting from the prediction almost coincides

with the real bending moments and the differences between the vertical deflections of the pre-

diction and real analysis are zero in the side span and increase up to 9mm at the end of the main

span.

Recapitulating, it can be stated that the presented method to adjust discrepancies between the

theoretical and actual condition of a cable stayed bridge during construction leads to satisfac-

torily results. In the example calculation the residual error between the actual and desired final

condition is sufficiently small and thus, the validity of the assumption that error patterns may be

used for the prediction of the final state even if the identified errors do not absolutely coincide

with the real error factors is proved. Nevertheless, from the vertical deflections of almost 20mm

in the middle of the main span it becomes clear that the adjustment in early stages may lead to

incorrect adjustments. From the standpoint of final residual errors the adjustment in the final

construction stage is preferable. In this case a forecast of the future evolution is not needed,

which leads to clearly better results.

However, in the presented calculation the residual errors were sufficiently small which shows

that, if field measurements and adjustment calculations are performed carefully, fruitful results

can also be achieved in the construction control timely during erection. In contrast to the ad-

justment in the final construction stage, using this method, no expensive and work-consuming

restressing operations are required. Hence, it is much more economical and, especially for long

span cable-stayed bridges having a large number of cables, the adjustment during construction

is proposed.

Chapter 7

7.1 Summary

The present work concerns the analysis and control of cable-stayed bridges during construction

by the cantilevering method. A new method to determine an optimum tensioning strategy is

presented that allows for the consideration of several effects that are relevant for the design of

cable-stayed bridges, including the construction sequence, second-order theory, large displace-

ments, cable sag and time-dependent effects such as creep and shrinkage. In contrast to other

existing methods, the ”expanded unit load” method automatically computes the initial cable

forces that need to be applied at the time of erection of the cables to achieve a desired bending

moment distribution and/or desired deformation in the complete structure. The performance

of a traditional backward and subsequent forward analysis, which is usually accompanied by

problems in particular construction stages, is not necessary.

As a matter of fact the issue to control the stress distribution and the final geometry of a cable-

stayed bridge not only concerns the initial design of an optimum tensioning strategy, but also

requires a detailed construction control during the erection process. Due to inevitable errors be-

tween the structural design parameters an the actual ones, unexpected discrepancies may occur

between the predicted and actual state of the structure in a given construction stage. This thesis

presents an economically efficient method to control these discrepancies by the adjustment of

cable tension forces and deck elevations during the erection process. The method is based on

the identification of structural errors by the least square minimization, the forecast of the fu-

ture evolution of the structure and the determination of construction adjustments that reduce the

residual error in the complete structure.

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 177

For the analysis of cable-stayed bridges there exist different standard structural analysis pro-

grams. Two of them, namely Larsa2000/4th Dimension and MIDAS/Civil, are demonstrated

in this thesis. Both programs have a particular emphasis on bridge structures and offer a con-

struction stage analysis feature, but their functionality in a construction stage analysis of a

cable-stayed bridge differs.

Larsa2000 is an American software program that allows for the consideration of material non-

linearity, second-order theory, large displacement effects and time effects on materials including

creep, shrinkage, concrete aging and relaxation of steel in a construction stage analysis, but the

sag effect of cables can not be taken into account. In a construction stage analysis by MI-

DAS/Civil, a Korean analysis program, almost the same relevant effects can be considered.

However, in contrast to Larsa/2000, MIDAS/Civil can include the nonlinear behavior of ca-

bles due to sag, but P-Delta effects can not be taken into account. An additional function in

MIDAS/Civil is the unknown load factor function that automatically computes the ideal post-

tensioning forces in the stay cables for a desired final condition. The basic idea of this function

corresponds to the ”expanded unit load” method, but it only works for time-independent, linear

construction stage analyses.

Concluding this thesis, the above mentioned methods to determine an optimum tensioning strat-

egy and to control the geometry and internal forces during the erection process are verified on

the basis of an example calculation of a simple cable-stayed bridge.

The initial cable forces are determined in a linear static, a time-independent and a time-dependent

construction stage analysis. The results show that the calculated cable forces in almost all cases

exactly lead to the predetermined moment distribution or deformation within the deck and the

pylon. Comparing the results determined by Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil they are almost iden-

tical. Only when using the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil in a construction

stage analysis for restricted deformations problems occur. Apparently, this function neglects

the fact that segments are applied tangentially and, when a designated geometry is aspired, the

calculated cable forces do not yield the desired condition. Hence, cable forces determined by

the unknown load factor function in MIDAS/Civil for a restricted geometry are generally use-

less for the real bridge construction.

Comparing the resulting cable forces determined in the time-independent and time-dependent

construction stage analysis, it is visible that time effects on materials have a considerable influ-

ence on the structural behavior of concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges during construc-

tion. The post-tensioning forces that are needed to achieve the desired condition significantly

increase when considering creep and shrinkage.

The performance of a nonlinear, time-dependent construction stage analysis shows that geomet-

ric nonlinear effects are of minor importance for small cable-stayed bridges like the example

model.

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 178

Regarding the construction control during the erection process, the example calculation shows

that the presented method to adjust discrepancies between the theoretical and actual condition

of a cable-stayed bridge leads to satisfactorily results. A considerable improvement of the

resulting bending moment distribution and deformed shape of the adjusted analysis compared

to the uncorrected construction analysis is visible. Even if the desired condition is not exactly

reached, the deviations are within tolerable limits.

7.2 Conclusions

The present work shows that the determination of an optimum tensioning strategy can be carried

out efficiently by the proposed method. In the example calculations, the construction process

and time-dependent effects are sufficiently taken into account in the computation of the initial

cable forces. In order to keep the calculations linear and to avoid iterative solutions, the consid-

eration of nonlinear effects in the ”expanded unit load” method is explained, but not exemplary

demonstrated. From the performance of a nonlinear construction stage analysis using the cable

forces determined in a linear analysis, it is shown that the approach to neglect the nonlinear be-

havior is sufficient as long as the considered cable-stayed bridge is small. However, as the main

span length increases, the geometric nonlinear effects can no longer be ignored. This obviates

the need for performing an iterative solution to determine appropriate initial cable forces.

Concerning time-dependent effects, it is found that creep and shrinkage have a considerable

influence on the structural behavior of cable-stayed bridges during the construction process.

Clearly higher cable forces are needed to control the geometry and internal forces during erec-

tion when these effects are taken into account. Thus, for concrete or composite cable-stayed

bridges, it is generally recommended to include time effects on materials in the determination

of the optimum tensioning strategy, even if a small cable-stayed bridge is investigated.

Furthermore, it is shown in this thesis that in cable-stayed bridges continuous geometrical mon-

itoring is absolutely necessary in order to obtain acceptable geometry and tension conditions

for the structure. Error factors in the structural parameters are inevitable and continuous mon-

itoring enables the contractor to adapt to any changes and to avoid founding any decision on a

single measurement; a suitable decision for the adjustment on site can be made.

In the example calculation, the adjustment of cable forces and deck elevations during the erec-

tion process is demonstrated. The achieved final condition is acceptable, but there are still

deviations to the desired state. Construction adjustments in the final construction stage are gen-

erally easier and yield better results. However, as the residual error in the example calculation is

sufficiently small, from the standpoint of economic efficiency the presented method is proposed.

Moreover, using this method the accumulation of the discrepancies of the structural response

during erection is avoided.

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 179

The analysis programs Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil are proved to be powerful tools for the

structural analysis of cable-stayed bridges. Both offer many features for the analysis and design

of these structures, whereby MIDAS/Civil offers even more than Larsa2000. However, these

additional features in MIDAS/Civil do not necessarily work in the program. For example, MI-

DAS/Civil offers the function to include time-dependent and nonlinear effects in a construction

stage analysis, but does not allow to consider them both simultaneously. When including non-

linear behavior in an analysis, MIDAS considers large displacement effects and the nonlinear

behavior of the cables, but P-Delta has not been added to the program yet. Concerning the

unknown load factor function, MIDAS offers a tool to automatically solve for unknown load

factors. This function works properly in a linear static analysis and is to some extend incorrect

in a linear construction stage analysis; in time-dependent or nonlinear analyses it does not work

at all. MIDAS/Civil claims all these features as special tools for the analysis of cable-stayed

bridges, but does generally not inform about their limitations. The program should therefore

always be handled with special care.

Larsa2000 is simpler and offers less features, but they generally work in the program. The only

limitation is that cable sag effects are not considered when performing a nonlinear analysis.

Apart from this, all features used during this work seem to operate properly.

Nevertheless, by the dint of both Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil satisfactorily results could be

achieved during the development of this thesis. Using these programs in the example calcula-

tion of a simple cable-stayed bridge, it was possible to exemplary demonstrate the procedure of

computing an optimum tensioning strategy and to adjust discrepancies during erection of cable-

stayed bridges. Unfortunately, Larsa2000 and MIDAS/Civil could not automatically manage

these calculations. It was necessary to manually determine the data for the influence matrices

and to solve the respective equations, which is a time-consuming process. For bigger struc-

tures including a multiplicity of cables, the calculation effort gets enormous and the presented

procedures become uneconomically. Especially when nonlinear effects shall be included and

iterative solutions are required, it would safe a considerable amount of work to fully implement

the presented optimizaion procedures in the structural analysis programs, as it has already been

done in RM2004. Alternatively, a special computer program that handles these problems could

be developed. However, the implementation into software programs has not been the topic of

this thesis, but would be the next step to apply the presented analysis and construction control

methods to real projects.

Bibliography

[1] Adeline, R., Monitoring and adjustment of the geometry and cable tension of cable-stayed

bridges built using the balanced cantilever method - The case of Pont de Normandie,

International Conference A.I.P.C.-F.I.P.- Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, Vol. 2,

Deauville, 1994, pp. 379-386

[2] Bažant, Z.P. and Wittmann, F.H., Creep and shrinkage in concrete structures, John Wiley

& Sons, New York, 1982

[3] Bishara, A.G. and Papakonstantinou, N.G., Analysis of cast-in-place concrete segmental

cantilever bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 5 (1990), pp.

1247-1268

[4] Bruer, A., Pircher, H. and Bokan, H., Computer based optimizing of the tensioning of

cable-stayed bridges, IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and fu-

ture, Malmö, Sweden, 1999

[5] Chauvin, A.H. and Alvares Solis, H., The El Canon & El Zapote bridges, Mexico - Control

of geometry during construction, International Conference A.I.P.C.-F.I.P. - Cable-stayed

and suspension bridges, Vol. 2, Deauville, 1994, pp. 405-412

[6] Chen, D., A new method to assign initial cable forces for prestressed cable-stayed bridges,

IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and future, Malm ö, Sweden,

1999

[7] Chen, D.W., Au, F.T.K., Tham, L.G. and Lee, P.K.K., Determination of initial cable forces

in prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridges for given design deck profiles using the force

equilibrium method, Computers and Structures, Vol. 74 (2000), pp. 1-9

[8] Cluley, N.C. and Shepherd, R., Analysis of concrete cable-stayed bridges for creep, shrink-

age and relaxation effects, Computers and Structures, Vol. 58, No.2 (1996), pp. 337-350

[9] Cruz, J. and Almeida, J.F., A new model for cable-stayed bridge control and adjustment,

IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and future, Malm ö, Sweden,

1999

BIBLIOGRAPHY 181

[10] Cruz, P.J.S., Mari, A.R. and Roca, P., Nonlinear time-dependent analysis of segmentally

constructed structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 3 (1998),

pp. 278-287

[11] Ernst, J.H., Der E-Modul von Seilen unter Berücksichtigung des Durchhanges, Der Bauin-

genieur, Vol. 40, No. 2 (1965), pp. 52-55

[12] Fanourakis, G.C. and Ballim, Y., Predicting creep deformation of concrete - Comparison

of results from different investigations, Proceedings, 11th FIG Symposium on Deforma-

tion Measurements, Santorini, Greece, 2003

[13] Fujisawa, N. and Nakamura, N., Computer sytem for cable adjustment of cable-stayed

bridges during erection, International Conference A.I.P.C.-F.I.P.- Cable-stayed and sus-

pension bridges, Vol. 2, Deauville 1994, pp. 387-394

[14] Ghali, A., Favre, R. and Elbardy, M., Concrete structures - Stresses and deformation, 3rd

Ed., E & FN Spon, New York, 2002

[15] Gimsing, N.J., Cable-supported bridges - Concept & Design, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons,

West Sussex, United Kingdom., 1997

bridges - Past, present and future, Malmö, Sweden, 1999

[17] Grabow, M.J., Construction stage analysis of cable-stayed bridges, Diplomarbeit, Arbeits-

bereich Baustatik und Stahlbau, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, 2004

[18] Han, D. and Yan, Q., Construction control practice for Panyu cable-stayed bridge, IABSE

Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and future, Malm ö, Sweden, 1999

[19] Han, D. and Su, C., Construction control of the Yamen cable-stayed bridge, Department

of Civil Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou

[20] Hansvold C., Faller P., Nilsson H. and Svahn P.-O., Erection of the Uddevalla Bridge,

IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and future, Malm ö, Sweden,

1999

[21] Janjic, D., Pircher, M. and Pircher H., Optimization of cable tensioning in cable-stayed

bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2003), pp. 131-137

[22] Karoumi, R., Some modeling aspects in the nonlinear finite element analysis of cable

supported bridges, Computers and Structures, Vol. 71 (1999), pp. 397-412

[23] Kwak, H.-G. and Seo, Y.-J., Numerical analysis of time-dependent behavior of pre-cast

pre-stressed concrete girder bridges, Construction and building materials, Vol. 16 (2002),

pp. 49-63

BIBLIOGRAPHY 182

[24] Kwak, H.-G. and Son, J.-K., Determination of design moments in bridges constructed by

balanced cantilever method, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24 (2002), pp. 639-648

[25] Larsa, Inc., LARSA 2000: Reference for LARSA 2000, Finite element analysis and design

software, Melville, New York, USA, August 2004

[26] Larsa, Inc., LARSA 2000: User’s Guide for LARSA 2000, Finite element analysis and

design software, Melville, New York, USA, August 2004

[27] Larsa, Inc., LARSA 2000/4th Dimension: Staged construction analysis for LARSA 2000,

Finite element analysis and design software, Melville, New York, USA, August 2004

[28] Manabe, Y., Mukasa, N., Hirahara, N. and Yabuno, M., Accuracy control on the con-

struction of Tatara Bridge, IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and

future, Malmö, Sweden, 1999

[29] Marchetti, M. and Lencinq, B., Stay adjustment: From design perspective to on site prac-

tice, IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges - Past, present and future, Malm ö, Swe-

den, 1999

[32] Nazmy A.S., Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M., Three-dimensional nonlinear static analysis of cable-

stayed bridges, Computers and Structures, Vol. 34 (1990), pp. 257-271.

[33] Negrao, J.H.O. and Simoes, L.M.C., Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with three-

dimensional modelling, Computers and Structures, Vol. 64 (1997), No. 1-4, pp. 741-758

[34] Paik, J., Song, S., Cho, S. and Kang, H., Geometry control of cable-stayed bridge in

SeoHae Bridge, IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges, Seoul, Korea, 2001

[35] Paulik, L. and Deschamps, D., Construction and geometry control of the Mezcala cable-

stayed bridge Mexico, International Conference A.I.P.C.-F.I.P. - Cable-stayed and suspen-

sion bridges, Vol. 2, Deauville, 1994, pp. 395-404

[36] Peterson, C., Stahlbau - Grundlagen der Berecnung und baulichen Ausf ühung von

Stahlbauten, 3rd Ed., Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 1993

beitung G.m.b.H, Graz, Austria, 2003

[38] Pircher, H., Die computerunterstützte Berechnung für eine große Schrägseilbrücke (Udde-

valla Brücke) in Schweden, Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Professor Greiner, Tech-

nical University Graz, Austria, 2001

BIBLIOGRAPHY 183

[39] Pircher, H., Finite differences to simulate creep and shrinkage in prestressed concrete and

composite structures, International Conference on Computation Modelling of Concrete

Structures, H. Mang, N. Bicanic and R. De Borst, eds, Innsbruck, 1994, pp. 579-588

[40] Podolny, W. and Scalzi, J.B., Construction and design of cable-stayed bridges, 2nd Ed.,

John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986

Werner-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1980

[42] Roik, K., Albrecht, G. and Weyer, U., Schrägseilbrücken, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1986

[43] Schlaich, M., Erection of cable-stayed bridges having composite decks with precast con-

crete slabs, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 6, No. 5 (2001), pp. 333-339

[44] Schneider, K.-J., Bautabellen für Ingenieure, 14. Auflage, Werner Verlag, Düsseldorf,

2001

[45] Simoes, L.M.C. and Negrao, J.H.O., Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with box-girder

decks, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 31 (2000), pp. 417-423

[46] Starossek, U., Cable-stayed bridge concept for longer spans, Journal of Bridge Engineer-

ing, ASCE, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1996), pp. 99-103

[47] Troitsky, M.S., Cable-stayed bridges - Theory and design, 2nd Ed., BSB Professional

Books, Oxford, U.K., 1988

[48] Virlogeux, M., Erection of cable-stayed bridges - The control of the designed geome-

try, International Conference A.I.P.C.-F.I.P.- Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, Vol. 1,

Deauville, 1994, pp. 321-350

[50] Walther R., Houriet, B., Isler, W., Moia, P. and Klein, J.F., Cable-stayed bridges, Thomas

Telford, London, 1999

[51] Wang, P.H., Tseng, T.C. and Yang, C.G., Initial shape of cable-stayed bridges, Computers

and Structures, Vol. 46(6) (1993), pp. 1095-1106

[52] Wang, P.H., Lin, H.T. and Tang, T.Y., Study on nonlinear analysis of a highly redundant

cable-stayed bridge, Computers and Structures, Vol. 80(2) (2002), pp. 165-182

[53] Wang, P.H., Tang, T.Y. and Zheng, H.N., Analysis of cable-stayed bridges during con-

struction by cantilever methods, Computers and Structures, Vol. 82 (2004), pp. 329-346

BIBLIOGRAPHY 184

[54] Wang, S. and Fu, C.C., Static and stability analysis of long-span cable-stayed steel bridges,

University of Maryland, 2003

[55] Xanthakos, P.P., Theory and design of bridges, New York, 1994

[56] Xiao, R., Xiang, H., Jia, L. and Song, X., Influence matrix method of cable tension

optimization for long-span cable-stayed bridges, IABSE Conference on cable-supported

bridges, Seoul, Korea 2001

[57] Zienkiewics, O.C. and Taylor, R.L., The finite element method, 5th Ed., Volume 2,

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000