Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Replacement of The Stay Cables On Penang Bridge
Replacement of The Stay Cables On Penang Bridge
Abstract
Penang Bridge links Penang Island with the Malaysian mainland peninsula. It was completed in 1985 and is
currently the only link and is therefore a vital crossing. The main cable stayed bridge has a span of 225m with
side spans of 107.5m. The bridge carries two carriageways, each with three lanes.
The bridge cables comprise lengths of coupled high-yield bars within a grouted steel tube. An assessment
of the structure in 1996-1999, using modern design standards, identified large overstress in the shortest
cables anchored close to the pylons. Other cables were also found to be overstressed, but less so. As a result,
bearings were installed at the piers to relieve load from the shortest cables and the second shortest sets of
cables were replaced. An acoustic monitoring system was also installed on all cables to detect any problems.
Since then, two bar breaks have been detected in other cables which led to their replacement. Inspection and
testing showed fatigue of the couplers to be responsible for the breaks.
Following the first bar break detected in December 2004, an additional assessment was completed by
Atkins. This paper describes the assessment of the bridge cables, examines the consequences of a cable
failure and discusses the reasons why the decision to replace all the cable stays was made. It also describes
the specification for the new replacement stay system and its advantages over the old system.
Penang Bridge links Penang Island with the Malaysian was removed, an additional three bars were found to be
mainland Peninsula. It was completed in 1985 and is broken at couplers. Testing of the couplers showed that
currently the only link and is therefore a vital crossing. some were showing signs of fatigue damage, while fatigue
The overall length of the viaduct is approximately 13.5km, was found to be the cause of the three broken ones.
which mostly consists of 40m span post-tensioned beams. Following the first bar break detected in December
The main cable stayed bridge has a span of 225m with 2004, an additional assessment was completed by
side spans of 107.5m. The bridge carries two carriageways, Atkins. This identified that many of the current cables
each with three lanes. The bridge is shown in Figure 1 and were significantly overstressed in accordance with
the numbering system for the cables is shown in Figure 2. current standards. The predicted overstress in the cables,
The bridge cables comprise lengths of coupled high-yield combined with the history of bar breaks, led to the
STRUCTURES
bars within a grouted steel tube. An assessment of the decision to replace the remaining cables on the bridge.
structure in 1996-1999, using modern design standards, The remainder of this paper describes the assessment
identified large overstress in the shortest cables, M1 of the bridge cables, examines the consequences
and E1, anchored close to the pylons. Other cables were of a cable failure and discusses the reasons why the
also found to be overstressed, but less so. As a result, decision to replace all the cable stays was made. It also
bearings were installed at the piers to relieve load from describes the specification for the new replacement
the shortest cables and the second shortest sets of cables stay system and its advantages over the old system.
were replaced. An acoustic monitoring system was also
installed on all cables to detect any problems. Since then,
two bar breaks have been detected in other cables which
led to their replacement. When the first of these cables
47
48
Steel Pipe
Grout
Dywidag bars
Anchorage Plate Form Tube Grout Rivets Denso Outer Stay Pipe
STRUCTURES
49
- Resin
50
the equivalent of a “D” detail to BS 5400:Part 10. Figure 4. Assessment of the structure
6 schematically illustrates the area the glue was intended
to be injected into to improve the fatigue resistance.
The initial site failures also led to proof testing As a result of the bar break detected on cable
of all the couplers to a load equal to 80% of the M9 in 2004, Atkins assessed the structure in
ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the bars. This 2005. The assessment considered the key stages
testing led to nine further coupler failures during of the bridge construction including:
the proof load testing which were attributed to • Incremental launching of the deck
defective material and workmanship problems.
• Application of tie-down forces at end supports
Since the construction of the bridge, couplers have been
• Installation of longitudinal prestress
recovered from the existing cables and these samples
in the deck slab at midspan
have shown that under site conditions, it had proved very
difficult to inject the glue effectively. The large number of Previous strengthening operations including installation
couplers which were glued during the construction meant of bearings at the pylons, replacement of the M2/E2
that, statistically, some would be inadequately treated. stays and addition of longitudinal buffers between the
main towers and deck to enhance seismic resistance.
In 2000, when bearings were installed at the piers,
the second shortest cables, M2 and E2, were replaced. Although the whole structure was assessed, the key
Examination of these cables showed that one of the focus was on the design of the cables due to the previous
92 couplers had failed. An acoustic monitoring system failures detected. Cables were checked for static strength,
was installed in 2003 to monitor the cables and detect fatigue performance under traffic and vibration. Seismic
bar breaks. In 2004/2005, cable M9 on the southwest assessment was also carried out using response spectra
side of the structure was replaced after a bar break was supplied by UTM and using load factors specified in BS
detected in the cable. After the bars within the cable EN 19901, but this was found to be less critical than the
were examined, four of the 80 couplers were found to be static loading and is therefore not discussed further here.
broken or damaged. Tensile tests were subsequently carried
out on 40 bars containing couplers. Of these, one coupler Static strength assessment of the cables
failed at a load of 274.57 kN, 25% of its expected breaking The cables were assessed statically to determine
load and a further eight bars ruptured at the coupler in their adequacy. To reflect the construction sequence
a brittle manner below the expected breaking load. of the structure, the assessment assumed that the
Typically, the couplers had failed by splitting into two self-weight load was carried by the internal bars
‘C’ shaped pieces as shown in Figure 7. Inspection by only with the SDL loads and live loads carried by
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) with a scanning both the bars and the external steel tube which
electron microscope revealed that cracking had initiated is grouted to the bars and grouted into the edge
at the first thread, where the load was concentrated, beam. Three live load conditions were considered:
and had propagated until brittle fracture had occurred. i) HA and HB (45 units) loading to BS 5400:Part 2 - 19783
The shape of the couplers, with the thickness tapering
ii) Bridge Specific Assessment Live Loading
towards the outer threads, did not help this. It is believed
(BSALL) which had been derived in an earlier
that the couplers were initially of constant thickness
commission and which was slightly less onerous
throughout, but were modified to be this shape early
than the BS 5400:Part 2 - HA loading
on during construction to facilitate placement of bars.
iii) Special vehicles defined by JKR, the Malaysia
In 2006 a further bar break was detected, and the cable
Public Works Department, in conjunction with
E9 on the southwest side was replaced. Crucially, since
associated HA loading to BS 5400:Part 2.
the acoustic monitoring system was not installed until
2003, it was uncertain what the condition of the other The bars in the cables were checked at ULS and SLS by
cables was and how many bar breaks had occurred comparing the combined load effects from the model with
before the monitoring system had been installed. stress limits of 67% and 45% of the ultimate bar resistance
at ULS and SLS respectively. These are the current stress
STRUCTURES
51
800
JKR (SLS)
657.92
700
600
400
300
100
0
E12
E11
E10
E9
E8
E7
E6
E5
E4
E3
E2
E1
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M12
M11
M10
M9
M8
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
E11
E12
BARS
-100 CABLE TUBE
JKR (SLS)
1200
BARS UTS
1000
851.49
800
600
400
TUBE YIELD/1.15
200
0
E12
E11
E10
E9
E8
E7
E6
E5
E4
E3
E2
E1
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M12
M11
M10
M9
M8
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
E11
E12
BARS
CABLE TUBE
behaviour. 80% UTS was also the load to which the bars considered. The greatest SLS stress in a bar under this
and couplers had been proof tested during construction. loading equated to 63% UTS which was however
For the tubes, a stress limit of 45% UTS, i.e. still well below the practical elastic limit of 80% UTS.
234 MPa, was adopted at SLS and at ULS, a Figures 8 and 9 show the bar stresses at SLS and ULS
limit of 0.87 fy was adopted, i.e. 313 MPa. respectively for JKR loading. The overstress was less for
HA live loading to BS 5400-2:1978 and BSALL loading.
The assessment showed that the build up of stress
in the bars and the outer steel pipe led to many of At ULS, most bars met the proposed stress limit of
the bars in the cables having an apparent overstress, 67% UTS with the exception of cables E12, M12
some as much as 39% based on the above current and M5 to M8. However, all cables complied with
codified SLS criterion under the JKR vehicle loading. a higher stress limit of f0.1% / γm = f0.1% / 1.15
This was the most adverse of the live loading situations = 74% UTS corresponding to design yield.
52
S-N Curves
1000
Maximum Stress (Mpa)
100
10
1
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
Number of Cycles
53
longer cables vibrate in multiple wavelengths at similar duration before intervention and the imposition of traffic
frequency. Using these assumptions, hand calculations on restrictions once a cable failure had been detected would
cable M5 suggested that vibration might induce a stress be relatively short. The design value of traffic actions to
range of about 20 N/mm2 in the cables away from the consider in this period would therefore be much less than
anchorages and a potentially higher stress range at the those appropriate to the 120 year design life. (The loading
anchorages where bending of the cables is restrained to BS 5400 is slightly greater than the BSALL). These load
by the concrete encasing the outer steel pipe. This was factors are also broadly consistent with the recommended
considered to be potentially a significant increase to values for accidental situations in Eurocode BS EN 1990.
the live load stress range from traffic. The results were
The effects of a complete cable failure (all bars and the
however sensitive to vibration amplitude and mode shape,
outer pipe) were considered by analysing the structure
including coexistent movement of the deck, and these
with one cable removed. The effects of permanent loads
54
BARS UTS
1000.0
600.0
TUBE UTS
400.0
TUBE YIELD
200.0
0.0 TUBE
E12
E11
E10
E9
E8
E7
E6
E5
E4
E3
E2
E1
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M12
M11
M10
M9
M8
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
E11
E12
BARS
BARS UTS
1000.0
793 MPa
72% UTS
800.0
Stress (MPa)
600.0
TUBE UTS
400.0
TUBE YIELD
200.0
0.0 TUBE
E12
E11
E10
E9
E8
E7
E6
E5
E4
E3
E2
E1
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M12
M11
M10
M9
M8
M7
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
E10
E11
E12
BARS
STRUCTURES
55
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
Change in Stress (MPa)
40.0
20.0
E12
E10
E11
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M6
M5
M4
M3
M2
M1
E9
E8
E2
E1
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
0.0
E7
E6
E5
E4
E3
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
M12
M11
M10
M9
M8
M7
E10
E11
E12
-20.0
-40.0
-60.0
FIGURE 14. CHANGE IN STRESSES IN CABLE
AND BARS AFTER REMOVAL OF A CABLE M12
bars and the risk of failure in one of the remaining bars A greater concern was that there might be no transfer
would increase. Should another failure occur, further of force from bars to tubes through bond in the event
stress increases would occur in the remaining bars and of bar failure (because of weak or incomplete grouting),
there would be a significant risk of progressive failure of but instead the bars could progressively fail with force
all the bars within that cable. At the same time, some transferred to the tubes at the end anchorages only.
tension would also be transferred to the outer tube. Analysis with this assumption suggested that the force
In the absence of a brittle fracture of the tube (which increase in the tubes, if all bars failed, would be insufficient
would not be expected), it might be expected that the tube to cause the tube to yield. Thus, although the tube
would have sufficient ductility to carry some residual load would continue to carry some load, there would be little
after all the bars had failed. Re-anchoring of the bars away obvious visual sign of distress in the outer tubes, which
from the fracture location and bond to the steel tube could would remain taut, albeit with some increased sag. This
mean that this plastic deformation was very localised to situation would be potentially very dangerous because
the bar fracture site, leading to only limited total extension a further cable could then fail as a result of the load
before rupture of the tube occurred. If this available shed; this could lead to collapse of the entire deck. This
extension before rupture was small compared to the scenario could however be detected by either vibration
deflection of the deck at the cable anchorage in the event testing of the cables (the natural frequency would
of complete unloading of the cable, then the stress in the drop) or by level survey along the edge beam (a local
pipe would not be significantly relieved as it deformed dip centred on the broken cable would be expected).
plastically and it would rupture, losing its entire load. Residual force in the tube was not considered in
However, if the plastic extension available were to exceed the analysis, which gave additional comfort that
the deck deflection during complete unloading, the pipe the structure would not fail if all the bars within the
STRUCTURES
would not rupture and would be able to carry some cable failed. Some residual force in the tube would
residual force even after failure of all the bars within be likely in the event of bar failures, other than
it. This extreme aspect was investigated by calculation, in the unlikely event of an anchorage failure.
assuming upper-bound bond values for the concrete-
tube interface, and the available extension of the tube
was found to be sufficient to avoid rupture and to lock
in some residual cable force. There was however the
possibility that the tube anchorage itself could fail if the
tube picked up too much load; there was significant
acoustic activity detected in many of the anchorages.
56
PE pipe
STRUCTURES
Air
Galvanised strand
57
7. Cable replacement Recent experience has shown that grout may not
be as effective a form of corrosion protection as
once assumed because the grout tends to crack,
In 2006, Atkins produced a detailed design and reducing the effectiveness of the protection,
workmanship specification for the cable replacement and also causing fretting in the strands.
scheme, comprising replacement of all remaining 117 A major benefit of the new specified system is that
cables. Atkins other responsibilities were to perform each strand within the cables is individually replaceable,
the tender assessment, check the permanent and which would minimise the amount of work required
temporary works designs and to audit construction. UEM in any future replacements. The existing stay system
Construction, together with specialist contractor Freyssinet, is not replaceable as described in section 3 and
were awarded the contract to design and install the new thus the temporary works needed to replace each
system including all the necessary temporary works. cable was extensive as discussed in section 7.3.
Vibration of the existing stays was also considered to
7.1 Specification for new cable system be a potential problem. Vibrations arose because of the
The new cable tender specification was intended to low natural frequencies of vibration and low inherent
address many of the problems which were encountered damping. To mitigate the risk of vibration problems with
with the existing cables. The specification therefore the new stays, the specification gave a requirement for
represented current best practice and was strongly the provision of spiral ridged cable sheathing to counter
informed by Eurocode BS EN 1993-1-11 and reference rain and wind induced vibrations and also internal
6. The resulting specification formed the basis for replaceable dampers to control stay vibration amplitudes.
the UK National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-11. Damping to give a logarithmic decrement of at least 4%
at all vibration amplitudes was specified for all cables.
New cables The possibility of wind-induced and traffic-induced
vibrations also was specified to be considered in the
The specified cable system comprised uncoupled parallel
design by means of a dynamic analysis. Dynamic analysis
strands. These have excellent fatigue performance in stark
was specified to be carried out on the basis of the
contrast to the existing coupled bar system. A multi-
vehicles defined in Table 1 (from traffic data obtained
layer corrosion protection system was specified as shown
on the bridge in 2005), traversing the bridge with a
in Figure 15. The strands themselves are protected by
design speed between zero and 60 miles per hour. The
galvanising and are individually encased in a wax-filled
weights of 2, 3, 4 and 5 axle vehicles were be assumed
high density polyethylene sheath. The group of cables is
to be as given in Table 11 of BS 5400:Part 10.
then protected within an outer high density polyethylene
sheath filled with dry air. There is no grout filling material
within this outer duct unlike in the original stay system.
Strand Overlength - Permits End Cap. Strands Strand Guide Assembly Steel Anchorage Tube
Future adjustments to strands anchored here
Strands have no
contact with tube
anchored at tower
STRUCTURES
58
STRUCTURES
59
The new cables had to be designed to comply with cables. The strut and tie rules of clause 6.5
the stress limits given in BS EN 1993-1-11 under the of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 were used
live loading given in section 4.1. The cables needed • Designing temporary steelwork for high
to be replaceable without restrictions to the traffic combined moment and shear. The rules in
and needed to be adequate in the event of accidental clause 7 of BS EN 1993-1-57 were used.
removal of any one cable, including the dynamic effect
of severance. Cables were required to be replaceable
strand by strand or as an entire cable but the latter
case would require additional temporary stays to
support the deck since the deck itself had inadequate
serviceability performance with a stay removed.
60
8. Conclusion
STRUCTURES
61
References
62