Proc.

Proc.Schl.
Schl.Eng.
Eng.Tokai Univ.,
Tokai Ser. E
Univ., Ser. E
40 (2015) 21-28
（2007）■-■

Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges

with New Stay Systems
by

Fatema SAMIM*1 and Shunichi NAKAMURA*2

(Received on Mar. 31, 2015 and accepted on May 14, 2015)

Abstract
This paper presents the static and seismic structural behaviors of cable-stayed bridges with two new cable systems: the
overlapping stay system, and the hybrid cable system. First, static analysis is carried out for the four cable-stayed bridge
models with three different patterns of live load, consisting of train and vehicle loads. The live load distributed in the
mid-span gives larger deflection for all four models. The overlapping stay system and the hybrid cable system can
significantly reduce the displacements of the girder and the bending moment of the towers due to live loads. The
deflection of the girder with the overlapping stay system due to the train loads decreases by 9.5%, and the hybrid cable
system decreases by 10% in comparison with the conventional cable system. The deflection of the new cable systems are
within the allowable value specified for the Japanese bullet train, confirming that the serviceability limit is satisfied.
Second, seismic response of the four cable-stayed bridge models was investigated for ultra-large seismic waves. The
longitudinal displacement of the girder and the tower top and bending moment at the tower base was smallest for the
overlapping stay system among the four bridge models, showing better seismic performance than the conventional
cable-stayed bridge. In conclusion, the cable-stayed bridges with the overlapping stay system and that with the hybrid
cable system provide better serviceability and better seismic performance as well, which validates the superiority of these
structures.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridges, Overlapping stay system, Hybrid cable system, Railway bridges, Serviceability, Seismic
analysis

1. Introduction is a combined system of the cable-stayed bridge and the

suspension bridge and has been adopted on the Third
Cable-stayed bridges are structurally rational and can Bosporus Bridge, a road and railway bridge. The information
6), 7)
extend the applicable span length. They are still developing of this bridge is limited and no detail has been published
and new types of cable-supported bridges have been proposed about serviceabilty.
1), 2), 3)
and studied . On the other hand, they are relatively There have not been many studies on the structural
flexible and vulnerable to the dynamic loads of traffic. This is characteristics of these new stay systems and, in particular,
one of the reasons why they are not commonly used for their behavior under the train loads is not clarified. Besides,
railway bridges which require severe deflection restriction. no study has been conducted to clarify the seismic behaviors
Two promising solutions have recently come out and of these bridges. These are the main objective and originality
been applied to the actual bridges: the overlapping stay of this paper.
system and the hybrid cable system. The overlapping stay First, static analysis with three-dimensional bridge
system has been adopted on the New Forth Bridge where the models are carried out to clarify how the overlapping stay
girders are suspended with overlapping stays near the span system and the hybrid cable system affect the deflection and
center in addition to the stays spread on other parts 4), 5). sectional frces of the girder and the towers. Three different
As for the hybrid cable system, the girders are patterns of live loads consisting of train and vehicle are
suspended by the suspension cables at the center part in applied. The Shinkansen Train, the Japanese bullet train, is
addition to the stays on other parts. This hybrid cable system assumed as the design train load. There have been few past
studies on the sustainability of long span cable-stayed bridges
*1 Graduate Student, Course of Civil Engineering
*2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and this study is expected to provide useful results.

―1―
Vol. XXXI,, 2007
2015
21
 Fatema SAMIM & Shunichi NAKAMURA
Fatema SAMIM and Shunichi NAKAMURA

It is expected that the overlapping stays and hybrid

320,000 800,000 320,000
cable system reduce the displacements of the girder and 128,000 192,000 192,000 128,000
bending moment of the towers.
The deflection of the girder with the overlapping stay
system and the hybrid cable system due to the train loads are
A1 A2
obtained and compared with that of the conventional cable P1 P2 P3 P4
Model-
system. Then, the live load deflection of the new cable
systems, in other words, serviceability limit is discussed.
Second, seismic analysis has been performed for the
A1 A2
bridge models with the overlapping stay system and the P1 P2 P3 P4
Model-
hybrid cable system, and the response is compared with that
of the conventional cable-stayed bridge. The two design
ground motion seismic waves are considered: the
A1 A2
medium-strong earthquake and the ultra-strong earthquakes. P1 P2 P3 P4
Model-
It is shown how much the new systems can improve the
seismic performance in comparison with the conventional
cable system.
A1 A2
P1 P2 P3 P4

2. Bridge models
Fig.2 Side view of the four bridge models (mm)
The cable-stayed bridge with the main span length of 800 m
and the width of 26.2 m is studied in this paper (Fig.1 and Fig.2).
The bridge accommodates four vehicle lanes and one train truck 7,000

(Fig.1). The girder is a steel box girder with width of 26.2 m and
height of 3.5 m with orthotropic steel deck. The bridge has two
76,000

main towers and two side piers. The span length is

128+192+800+192+128m (Fig.2). The New Forth Bridge and the
Third Bosporous Bridge accommodate light trains with the
main-span length of 650m and 1408m, respectively. As Sinkansen

210,000
train is adopted in this study, the main span length is decided
210,000

800m, nearly the longest span of cable-stayed bridges in Japan.

116,000

Four bridge models with four different stay cable

arrangements are considered: Model-I with conventional cable
arrangement, Model-II with no clearance at the span-center of the
18,000

right and left cables, Model-III with overlapping stay cables near
the span-center and Hybrid-Model with suspension cable at the
main span, as shown in Fig.2.
The main tower is 210 m high and designed as an A -shaped
Fig.3 Main tower (mm)
(Fig.3). The cross-section is a steel box section with 7m long and
5m wide with steel plates 40mm in thickness (Fig.4). The grade of
40

7,000

26,200
540 1,280 1,280 500 5,000500 1,280 1,280 540
7,000 7,000
5,000
1,500
3,500

40

Fig.1 Girder cross-section (mm) Fig.4 Tower cross-section (mm)

―2― Proceedings
Proceedingsofofthe
theSchool
School of Engineering
Engineering,
Tokai
TokaiUniversity,
University, Series
Series E
22
 Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges with Two New Stay Systems
Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges with New Stay Systems

steel plates is assumed to be SM490Y which has tensile strength Dead loads consist of the self-weight of the girder, tower,
of 490 MPa. The side piers are located at 128m from the bridge cable and pavement for the vehicle lanes and slab and rails for the
end. All four models have the same dimension of tower and girder, train truck.
but different number of cables. Displacements and sectional forces of four bridge models
Cables have multi-fan stay systems in two planes with the are compared in Figs.8-13. Fig.8 is the deflection of the girder
maximum cable length of about 540 m for Model-III. A under design load L2, showing they follow the same behavior but
semi-parallel wire strand consisting of galvanized steel wires with the Hybrid Model is the minimum followed by Model-III and
7mm in diameter were assumed. The galvanized wire has tensile Model-I is the largest. The difference between Hybrid Model and
strength of 1,568 MPa. Five different numbers of strands were Model-I is about 8.5%, showing the effectiveness of the hybrid
used for the models: the maximum wire number of 499 is used as cable system and the overlapping system in restricting the live
an anchor cable in all three models and as a suspension cable in load deflection. Fig.9 is the girder bending moment of the four
hybrid model; and the minimum number of wires of 199 is used in bridge models to L2, showing that all of them behave similarly.
Model-III. The total number of stays in both Model-I and Concrete is partially filled inside the box girder at the side
Model-II is the same 160 stays, but in Model-III are 184 stay span as a counter-weight to prevent the uplift at the end piers and
cables and in hybrid Model 166 stays plus two suspension cables to minimize the bending moment of the tower. Cable pre-stress
and hangers. forces are installed to minimize the bending moment of the girder
and the tower and also to keep the cable force in tension. The
3. Static behavior under design loads counter-weight and the cable pre-stress forces are included in the
design dead load (D).
Static analysis was conducted for the four bridge models Three live load cases L1, L2 and L3 are considered (Fig.5).
with different stay cable system and the sectional forces and In the first case, the bridge is subjected to the vehicle loads in full
deformations were obtained. The girder is supported vertically and spans and the train loads in 400m length at the center of mid-span.
transversally on the cross beam of the tower but moves In the second case, both vehicle and train loads are applied only at
longitudinally. mid-span. In the third case, the only one side span is loaded.
Considering the geometrically nonlinear effect, the static Structural analysis was conducted with 3D beam models by a
performances of the four bridge models were analyzed for the structural analysis program, Engineer’s Studio (Forum 8).
design loads. The design loads consist of dead loads (D) and Fig.6 shows the girder deflection of Model III due to D+L.
design live loads (L) for vehicles and trains. The design vehicle The deflections of D+L1 and D+L2 show similar tendency but
live load is assumed to be uniformly-distributed loads p1=3.0 that D+L3 is different and much smaller. The deflection is the
kN/m2, which is a simplified value for long span bridges based on maximum in the case of D+L2. Fig.7 shows the bending moment
the Japanese specifications for highway bridges (Japanese Road of the two towers, P2 and P3, in Model-III due to the three live
Association 2012 8)). load cases. The load case D+L1 and load case D+L2 show similar
The design train live load is uniformly-distributed loads curves at the cable anchor parts in both towers, whereas the
p2=25.6 kN/m2/train which is for Shinkansen 700 series, one of behavior of the towers are different for load case D+L3. It is
9)
the heaviest trains in Japan . The total length of this train is 400m understood that the bending moment is maximum at the tower
consisting of 16 cars with each car 25m long. As an axle load is base in the case of D+L2. These figures clearly indicate that the
160 kN/wheel, the distributed live load of each car is “load  No. live load in the mid-span is critical.
of wheels/length = (160  4)/25 = 25.6 kN/m” according to the
Japanese Railway Specifications (Railway Technical Research
Institute 2010 9)).

A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 A2

p1+p2
p1 p1
L1
p1+p2
p1 p1
p1: vehicle load
L2 p2: train load
p1+p2
L3

Fig.6 Displacement of the girder under D+L for Model-III

Fig.5 Live load cases

―3―
Vol. XXXI,, 2007
2015
23
 Fatema SAMIM & Shunichi NAKAMURA
Fatema SAMIM and Shunichi NAKAMURA

Fig.7-b Bending moments of the tower (P3) under D+L

Fig.7-a Bending moments of the tower (P2) under D+L
for Model-III
for Model-III

Fig.10 is the tower displacement of the four bridge models due

to L2, showing that all of them behave similarly. Fig.11 is the
tower bending moment of the four bridge models with four bridge
models due to L2, showing that all of them behave similarly as a
whole but Model-III is the largest at the tower base and the
smallest at the cable anchor parts.
Fig.12 is the girder axial forces of the four bridge models due
to L2, showing that the girder is in compression in all the models.
In Model-III the compression is significantly larger than other
models at the center of the mid-span because of the overlapping
stay. However, the behavior of Hybrid-Model is almost the same
as the Model-I and Model-II except the center part of the Fig.8 Displacement of the girders under L2 for all models
mid-span. Fig.13 shows the cables axial forces under D+L2. First,
the stays and cables are all in tension. Second, the overall
tendency and the value of tension of the stays are similar among
four cases except the center at the mid-of span. At the span center
the stay of Hybrid-Model is largest, followed by Model-I and
Model-II. The stays of Model-III cover the area beyond the span
center but they are lower than others. The suspension cable of
Hybrid Model is constant in the side span and larger than that in
the center span.
It is noted that the assumed structural dimensions of the girder,
the tower and the cables were all checked by the allowable stress
method and the safety was verified. Sizes of the box section, and
thickness and grade of steel plates of the girder and the towers
were determined by the maximum sectional forces and the same
girder and tower sections were assumed.
Different size and number of cables are used for four models
depending on the tensile forces due to the design loads. It was Fig.9 Girders bending moment under L2
confirmed that all the stays are in tension under the design loads.

―4― Proceedings
Proceedingsofofthe
theSchool
School of Engineering
Engineering,
Tokai
TokaiUniversity,
University, Series
Series E
24
 Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges with Two New Stay Systems
Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges with New Stay Systems

Fig.10 Tower displacement under L2 Fig.11 Tower bending moment under L2

Fig.12 Girder axial forces under L2

Fig.13 Cable axial force under D+L2
The maximum deflection and deflection angle of the four
4. Serviceability of the bridges due to train load models are shown in Table 1. The maximum deflection of
Hybrid-Model is smallest (395mm) and within the allowable
Serviceability is an essential factor for railway bridges. It is deflection. The maximum deflection angle of four models nearly
usually checked so that the deflection caused by the train loads the same as about 1.8 mrad and within the allowable deflection
should be within the allowable value. There is no such value for angle. As shown in Fig.14 and Table 1, it is obvious that the
long-span cable-supported bridges in Japan and the allowable hybrid cable system and the overlapping system are promising to
deflection and deflection angle for short and medium span bridges reduce the live load deflection and contribute to improve
are adopted in this study according to the Japanese Railway serviceability of railway bridges.
9)
Bridge Specifications : the allowable deflection of L/2,000 = 400 Dynamic impact of moving vehicles on bridges is an
mm (L: span length) and the allowable deflection angle of 2.5 important factor in the design and evaluation of bridges and it
mrad. should be consider for the live loads of vehicles, but the impact
The vertical deflection of the girder of four models due to factor is proportional to the span length of bridges (i = 20/(50+L),
the train loads are shown in Fig.14. The deflection at the center of L: span length. In the long span bridges, the impact factor
Hybrid-Model is the smallest, followed by Model-III, Model-II decrease and it can be neglected. In this study, the impact factor
and Model-I. value is 0.02 and it is very small, so didn’t consider.

―5―
Vol. XXXI,, 2007
2015
25
 Fatema SAMIM & Shunichi NAKAMURA
Fatema SAMIM and Shunichi NAKAMURA

Time history analysis was conducted with time interval of

0.01sec by the same software used for static analysis, Engineer’s
Studio. The girder is supported vertically but moves free
longitudinally for all three models (Fig.16).
Elastic and plastic behaviors of steel towers are studied by
dividing the tower cross section into fiber elements, which are
assumed to conform to the idealized bilinear stress vs. strain curve
for steel with the elastic modulus of 200,000 N/mm2 and with the
yield stress of 315 N/mm2 and also the
Fig.17 shows the time history of the longitudinal
displacement of the girder at the tower position of the four bridge
Fig.14 Displacement of the girders under train loads models. The maximum longitudinal displacements of the girder at
P2 and that of the tower top are shown in Table 2. Both the girder
and tower top are smallest on Model-III and largest on Model-II.
Table 1 Maximum deflection and deflection angle due to train load Fig.18 shows the time history of the bending moments at the
tower base of the four bridge models. The maximum bending
Allowable moments at the tower base are shown in Table 2. The bending
Girder Allowable Deflection
Bridge deflection moment at the tower base is smallest on Model-III and largest on
deflection deflection angle
Model angle Model-II. Although the elastic and plastic analysis was conducted,
(mm) (mm) (mrad)
(mrad) none of the tower elements become plastic and they behave within
Model- 440 400 1.8 2.5 the yield stress.
Model- 437 400 1.9 2.5 The idealized bilinear stress vs. strain curve with the elastic
Model- 399 400 1.9 2.5 modulus of 200,000 N/mm2 and with the yield stress of 1720
Hybrid- N/mm2 is used for the cables, and all cables are within the
395 400 1.8 2.5
Model allowable tensile stresses.
These results of these figures and the table indicate that the
5. Seismic analysis overlapping system is effective in restricting the longitudinal
response and also in reducing the bending moment of the tower.
Seismic analysis was conducted in the longitudinal direction
for the four bridge models by the ultra-strong earthquake wave,
Level-2 earthquake (L2-EQ). Hard and good ground condition is
assumed. L2-EQ has two different types: Type-I and Type-II.
Type-I is the plate boundary earthquake and Type-II is the inland
earthquake. Type-II of L2-EQ design earthquake wave with the
A1
maximum ground acceleration of 6.75 m/sec2 was used in this P1
P2
study (Fig.15).
Fig.16 Longitudinal support of the girder

2
Max = 6.75 (m/sec )

Stress (N/mm²)
Stress (N/mm²)
y
y
a
Strain ()
1 2

y
1 2 Strain ()
Cable Steel Plate

Fig.17 Stress strain curve

Fig.15 Design earthquake wave (L2-Earthquake)

―6― Proceedings
Proceedingsofofthe
theSchool
School of Engineering
Engineering,
Tokai
TokaiUniversity,
University, Series
Series E
26
 Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges with Two New Stay Systems
Study on Serviceability of Cable-Stayed Bridges with New Stay Systems

Fig.18 Bending moments at tower base Fig.17 Girder longitudinal displacements at the tower position

Table 2 Dynamic response of three bridge models Table 3 Total steel weight of the girder and tower

Longitudinal displacement Total Total

Bending Bridge Girder Tower Cable
(mm) Weight Steel
Bridge moments at Models (kN) (kN) (kN)
Girder at (kN) (%)
Models tower base
Tower top tower Model-I 217,440 76,960 33,460 327,860 96.7
(kN.m)
position Model-II 217,440 76,960 33,584 327,984 96.8
Model-I 1,506 1,389 -228,715 Model-III 217,440 76,960 44,520 338,920 100
Model-II 1,882 1,730 -255,177 Hybrid-
217,440 76,960 36,583 330,983 97.7
Model-III 1,396 1,279 -218,284 Model
Hybrid-Model 1,396 1,492 -238,605

6. Required steel weight 7. Conclusions

Required steel weight is one of the useful information in The two new types of cable-stayed bridges have been
estimating the total construction cost of the bridge. As shown in proposed to reduce the deflection against traffic loads: the
Table 3, the steel weight of the girder and tower is same for the overlapping stay system and the hybrid cable system. Static and
four models because the member size and dimension are assumed seismic behaviors of four cable-stayed bridge models were
to be the same. Whereas, the required steel weight of stays and studied: Model-I with conventional cable system, Model-II with
cables are different for the four models. Model-III requires the no clearance at the span-center of the right lapping and left cables,
largest steel weight because it needs overlapping stays. Hybrid Model-III with the overlapping stay system and Hybrid Model
Model requires the second largest steel weight because it needs with the hybrid cable system. Main conclusion is summarized
suspension cables. Model-I requires smallest steel weight among below.
them. First, static analysis is carried out for four cable-stayed
However, the steel weight of the girder and the tower is bridge models with three different patterns of live load consisting
dominant compared with that of the stays and cables. Total steel of the train and vehicle loads. The live load distributed in the
weight of Hybrid Model and Model-III is larger than that of mid-span gives larger deflection for all three models. The
Model-I only by 3.3% and 1.0%. Considering the favorable overlapping stay system and the hybrid cable system can
effect on the serviceability of the overlapping stay system and the significantly reduce the displacements of the girder and bending
hybrid cable system, the increase of steel weight can be moment of the towers. The deflection of the girder with the
compensated. However, further study is necessary to improve the overlapping stay system due to the train loads decreases by 9.5%
accuracy of the total cost considering not only materials but also and the hybrid cable system decreases by 10% in comparison with
construction methods. the conventional cable system.

―7―
Vol. XXXI,, 2007
2015
27
 Fatema SAMIM & Shunichi NAKAMURA
Fatema SAMIM and Shunichi NAKAMURA

The deflection of the new cable system is within the 2) Miyachi K. and Nakamura S.: Ultimate Strength and
allowable value specified for the Shinkansen Train, confirming Collapse Process of Cable-Stayed Arch Bridges, Journal of
that serviceability limit is satisfied. Bridge Structures, Vol.10, No.2 (2014), pp.63-75.
Second, seismic response of the four models of cable-stayed 3) Okamoto Y., Nakamura S., Tanaka H. and Moriya Y.: Study
bridge models was investigated for the ultra-large seismic waves. on steel box girder bridges partly stiffened by CFT arch ribs,
The longitudinal displacement of the girder and the tower top and Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, Vol.70
bending moment at tower base is smallest for Model-III, the (2012), pp.28-35.
overlapping stay system, among the four bridge models and shows 4) Hussain N., Carter M., Kite S. and Minto B.: Forth
better seismic performance than the conventional cable-stayed replacement crossing – Concept design, IABSE Symposium
bridge, Model-I. in London (2011).
In conclusion, the cable-stayed bridges with the overlapping 5) Kite S., Carter M, Hooton M. and Minto B.: Forth
stay system and that with the hybrid cable system provide better Replacement Crossing - Design Criteria, IABSE
serviceability and better seismic performance as well, which Symposium in London (2011).
validates the superiority of these structures. Therefore, they are 6) Diana G., Argentini T., Belloli M., Flamand O., Muggiasca S.
expected to be more widely used as a long span bridge in the and Rosa L.: An innovative aeroelastic model of the Third
future. However, there are some technical problems to be solved Bosporus Bridge to study vortex induced vibrations,
such as the structural detail of cable crossing on the overlapping Istanbul Bridge Conference (2014).
stay system, the optimum area of the vertical hangers on the 7) Zasso A., Belloli M., Argentini T., Flamand O., Knapp G.,
hybrid cable system, the accurate cost evaluation, the construction Grillaud G., Klein J-F, Virlogeux M. and Ville V.de: Third
method and so on. Bosporus Bridge aerodynamics: Sectional and
full-aeroelastic model testing, Istanbul Bridge Conference
References (2014).
8) Japanese Road Association: Japanese specifications for
1) Okamoto Y. and Nakamura S.: Static and Seismic Studies on highway bridges (2012).
Steel/Concrete Hybrid Towers for Multi-span Cable-stayed 9) Railway Technical Research Institute: Japanese Railway
Bridges, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, Specifications (2010).
Vol.67, No.2 (2011), pp. 203-210.

―8― Proceedings
Proceedingsofofthe
theSchool
School of Engineering
Engineering,
Tokai
TokaiUniversity,
University, Series
Series E
28