Structural Analysis and

Design Aspects of
Suspension Bridges

Contemporary Themes in Structural

Engineering

DESN40117

COLIN BOOTH - N0839602

 1

CONTENTS

1. Suspension Bridges – Overview .................................. 2

1.1 Origins................................................................2
1.2 New Materials ...................................................2
1.3 Evolution of the Modern Day Suspension .........3
1.4 20th Century Bridge Construction .....................4
2. Types of Suspension Bridges ...................................... 6

2.1 Construction Technique ....................................6

2.2 Number of Spans ...............................................6
2.3 Cable Anchorage Method ..................................7
2.4 Stiffening Girder Support Types ........................7
2.5 Hanger Rope Orientation ..................................7
3. Structural Components Specifications ...................... 8

3.1 Main Towers ......................................................9

3.2 Cables ..............................................................10
3.3 Anchorages ......................................................13
3.4 Stiffened Girders (Bridge Deck) .......................14
3.5 Cable Supports and Attachments ....................15
4. Analysis Methods...................................................... 16

4.1 Classical Theory ...............................................16

4.2 Additional Design Consideration .....................16
References .................................................................... 17

Appendix ....................................................................... 19
1. Suspension Bridges – 2

Overview

A suspension bridge is a type of bridge where a composite deck is supported by two main
suspension cables. The principal structural elements of a suspension bridge include, vertical
suspenders, stiffening girders, suspension cables, towers, and anchorages. The main cables are
typically suspended between two towers and are connected to anchorages buried in the ground at
the ends. Vertical rods transfer the self-weight of the deck and the variable traffic loads to the
cables. The tensile load of the cables is then transferred into the towers and anchorages. The main
cables, are considered the primary load carriers, made of high-strength steel, their whole cross-
section is a highly efficient load bearing member lowering the chance of buckling. Thus, allowing
the overall weight of the bridge structure to greatly reduce and hence allowing for longer spans.
Modern day suspension bridges are used to carry road and/or rail traffic as well as pedestrians, the
more advanced versions can carry all three (Lin&Yoda 2017).
1.1 Origins
Using suspended natural fibres as a support to navigate a natural feature originated in ancient
times, examples of them had been discovered around the same time in Central and South America
and the Far East. The design of the modern-day suspension bridge has its origins in an age-old
bridge design, where three vines arranged in a triangle (two as handrails, one as the deck) with
vertical lengths tied at intervals between the upper and lower vines were used as a form of bridge
crossing by ancient civilizations. This primitive suspension bridge design has been in use for
centuries by indigenous peoples, who could build crossings from natural materials even though
they had little exposure to modern civilization. However, to
call this design primitive is a disservice when one considers
that, despite the limited and basic nature of the resources
and tools available, it was still possible to build such an
advanced structure. A disadvantage was that the natural
materials deteriorated over time. This type of suspension
bridge did not exist in the Western world until 1515, built
Figure 1 Primitive suspension
bridge. (Metcalfe 1970)
over the Padus River by the German and Swiss military (Chen
& Duan, 2000).
1.2 New Materials
The earliest record of an iron suspension bridge
being used in the UK was the Winch Bridge (Fig.2),
built in 1741 over the river Tees in Teesside. The
bridge was suspended on iron chains, stretched
from rock to rock over a gorge 18m deep, it was
21m long and 60cm wide. A handrail was on one
Figure 2 The Winch Bridge in Britain (Kawada
side and the deck was planked in such a manner Et Al, 2014)
that the pedestrian experienced all the vibrations of
the chain whilst being suspended over a rapid river.
The structure is a primitive design using advanced materials, but the key characteristics and design
remained the same, requiring the traveller to walk along the cable which also served as the deck,
the only difference was that the cables were made of iron. The design may have been primitive,
1. Suspension Bridges – 3

Overview

but the suspension bridge was in use for 60 years, demonstrating the clear superiority of iron as a
raw material when compared to plant fibres. It was clear, using iron chains greatly extended the
service life of suspension bridges, yet the Winch Bridge was not the structural equivalent of a
modern suspension bridge, primarily because the cable itself constituted the deck.
Whether iron chains or plant fibres, provided that the cables formed the deck and pedestrians
walked directly on them along their curve, it remains a primitive suspension bridge. Before the
suspension bridge could support vehicles, two critical inherent design problems must be
addressed. First, the deck should not follow the catenary of the main cables but instead should
form a flat deck or roadway. Secondly, to avoid excessive lateral excitation from traffic movement,
a degree of stiffness was essential (Kawada Et Al, 2014).

1.3 Evolution of the Modern Day Suspension

The modern-day suspension bridge is founded on these early structures, following their basic
design principles. However, coinciding with the industrial revolution meant that these bridge
designs differ quite markedly from the earlier examples. Advancements in materials, such as
wrought iron, meant that numerous structural components could be incorporated to allow for
higher loads, longer spans and higher durability. The key difference with this innovative design is
that vertical suspenders allow the deck to remain relatively flat.
Using the cable erection technique, the superstructure of a suspension bridge is constructed
without the need for temporary works. Although superficial, the design of the suspension bridge
enhances the aesthetic appearance of the structure, offering an advantage over other types of
bridges, making them modern wonders of the world. The early part of the 19th century saw the
evolution of the modern-day suspension bridge as we know it. These include the Jacob’s Creek
Bridge in Pennsylvania, an iron chain suspension bridge built in 1801 and the Menai Bridge,
connecting Anglesey to the Welsh mainland built in 1826 (Mahmoud, 2003).

The Clifton Suspension Bridge is an iconic suspension

bridges, designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel it crosses
the Avon Gorge, connecting Bristol to North Somerset.
Construction began in 1836, interrupted in 1843 due to
lack of funds, finally opening in 1864 and is a classic
example of a parabolic arc chain suspension bridge, as
shown in Fig. 3. The bridge has two 26 metre high towers
with a span of 214 metres and stands 76 metres above the
Figure 3 The Clifton Suspension Bridge Avon river. Recent computer analysis has revealed that in
his design of the crucial joints between the 4,200 links that make up the bridge’s chain, Brunel had
made an almost perfect calculation of the minimum weight needed to maintain maximum strength.
Although designed for pedestrian and horse drawn traffic, the bridge was so ingeniously
constructed that it now carries millions of cars a year. A recent discovery revealed that the bridge’s
abutments contain a honeycomb of chambers and tunnels, some of which are 11 metres high. It is
thought that these spectacular vaults reduced the cost of construction without compromising
strength, indicating early signs of structural optimisation (Lin&Yoda 2017).
 1. Suspension Bridges – 4

Overview

But it was the USA where the largest progress in suspension bridge design was made, by mid 1800s
a key figure in bridge design, John Roebling, had overseen the construction of the Wheeling bridge
which at the time was the longest span in the world (308m span) until 1851 and later collapsed.
Roebling was also heavily involved with the 250m span Niagra Bridge completed 1855, 322m span
Cincinatti-Covington bridge completed 1866 and 486m span Brooklyn Bridge completed in 1883. It
was during the construction of the Niagra Bridge that Roebling invented a revolutionary technique
for manufacturing the two main cables. It is called the Aerial spinning method and is still the
preferred method of construction to this day (Ryall, Et Al, 2000).

1.4 20th Century Bridge Construction

Figure 4 The Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge

Remaining in service for almost 100 years the
Grand Pont Suspendu (Sarine valley,
Switzerland) was the first example of a major
suspension bridge supported by wire cables.
Completed in 1834 it became the longest span
in the world (273m), exceeding the Menai
Bridge’s record at the time.
Of course, engineering design never stands still
and the desire to design and build ever longer
spans was the driving force behind some of the
world’s super structures. Advances in
engineering and material science have made
this possible. The Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge (Fig
1.4), completed in 1998, spans the Akashi.
Strait in Japan and is the world’s longest
bridge span, measuring 1,991m and boasting
six lanes of traffic It took 10 years to complete
this stiffened truss suspension bridge and
critical to its design is its ability to withstand
290km/h wind speeds and 8.5 magnitude
earthquakes. Shown in pink in Fig. 5 below,
illustrated is the magnitude of this enormous
structure in comparison to other structures.
In three years’ time, however, this record will
be surpassed by the Çanakkale 1915 Bridge in
North Western Turkey featuring a tower to
tower span of 2023m due to be completed in
the year 2023 (Hürriyet Daily News 2017).
1. Suspension Bridges –
Overview
Figure 5 Akashi Kaikyo Bridge structure comparisons
Closer to home is the Humber Bridge (Fig. 6),
spanning the Humber Estuary near Hull,
holding the record for the world’s longest
bridge until 1997, it is now only the ninth
longest in the world. The central span is
1,410m, with a total length of 2,220m. It
comprises two dual carriageways for road
traffic as well as footpaths and cycleways and
is designed for a lifespan of 120 years.
Approximately 480,000 tonnes of concrete
and 27,500 tonnes steel were used in its
construction and the two main cables of the
bridge carry a combined load of 19,400
tonnes. The deck of the Humber Bridge is
formed of the streamlined box girder concept.
Interestingly one tower is positioned in the
Humber and the other on land meaning
different design concepts were required for
consideration.
5
Figure 6 The Humber Bridge
Each tower rises 155.5m high above the piers
with two side spans in addition to the main
span. Its main purpose was to cut journey
times, the round trip between Grimsby and
Hull was 50 miles and took over an hour,
severe congestion on single carriageway roads
made the trip even longer. In the construction
of the concrete towers and installation of
main cables, a combination of saddle offset
and pull back of the tower was the selected
option.
Both these feats of engineering excellence, as
advanced as they are, clearly have their origins
in the primitive, early bridge designs used
hundreds of years ago by ancient civilizations
(Chen & Duan, 2000).
2. Types of Suspension 6

Bridges

There are numerous ways in which suspension bridges can be classified, these include the
construction technique, number of spans, cable anchorage method, stiffening girder supports and
hanger orientation.

2.1 Construction Technique

This method of identifying suspension bridges considers their components and configuration, i.e.
their type (Fig. 7). The most common variety is the suspended deck suspension bridge. Capable of
supporting high traffic volumes, two main cables anchored into the earth at each end, support the
central roadway via hanger rods. A descendant of the suspended deck bridge, the self-anchored
suspension bridge combines elements of its predecessor with the main cables anchored at the
extents of its own deck. This design puts additional tension on the bridge itself, ultimately making it
less reliable. Other less common designs are not typically considered when discussing major bridges
and are predominantly used by pedestrians, these are the simple suspension bridge (primitive
design), stressed ribbon bridges offer added stiffness and finally there is the underspanned
suspension bridge which due to the way it is built is unstable and therefore rarely used. (Chen & Duan,
2000)

Figure 7 Construction Technique (Underspanned, Stressed Ribbon, Simple)

2.2 Number of Spans

When classifying a suspension bridge by the number of spans, it is possible to categorise them in to
two towered or three or more towered (Fig. 8). Two towers are classified as single, two or three span
and three or more towered are known as multi-span. The three-span suspension bridge is preferred
over the other types. Due to the loading conditions, multi-span suspension bridges are designed with
essential precautionary measures to prevent increased displacement at the tower tops as deflection
increases with the number of spans. (Chen & Duan, 2000)

Figure 8 Number of Spans (Single-span, Three-span, Multi-span)

2. Types of Suspension 7

Bridges

2.3 Cable Anchorage Method

As discussed in 2.1 there are two approaches to anchoring the main cables of a suspension bridge.
The more frequent of the two methods is to externally anchor the cables into the ground, which then
receive the tensile load from the cables. In self-anchored suspension bridges the cables are fixed to the
stiffening girders, here the axial compression is transferred into the girders (Fig. 9). (Chen & Duan, 2000)

Figure 9 Cable Anchorage Method (Externally Anchored, Self-Anchored)

2.4 Stiffening Girder Support Types

The stiffening girder design is usually determined through the proposed usage of the bridge. If the
suspension bridge’s purpose is to be a highway then two-hinge stiffening girders are used. However,
if the design purpose is for the bridge to be a combination of highway and rail then a continuous
girder is adopted to ensure runnability (Fig. 10). (Chen & Duan, 2000)

Figure 10 Stiffening Girder Supports (Two-hinged, Continuous Self-Anchored)

2.5 Hanger Rope Orientation

Primarily most suspension bridges are constructed with vertical suspenders attached to the main
cables and stiffening girders; however diagonal hangers have been specified in the past to improve
the damping of the suspended deck structure, this was adopted in the design of the Severn Bridge.
Another option is to combine the two systems (Fig. 11). (Chen & Duan, 2000)

Figure 11 Hanger Rope Orientation (Vertical, Diagonal, Combined)

3. Structural Components 8

Specifications

In this next section a comprehensive review, design and analysis of a three span, externally
anchored suspension bridge will be performed. Figure 12 below illustrates the key structural
elements of a typical suspension bridge. The quality of a bridge may be measured by its success in
satisfying the basic objectives implicit in bridge design. These are functionality, structural integrity,
economic and aesthetically pleasing. As Engineers the primary concern is for the structural
sufficiency of the bridge. However besides continuing to stand, the bridge must also avoid
performance issues which reduce its efficiency or increase maintenance costs. Prior to a full-scale
model like Fig. 12 being produced, the design team must first establish the overall composition of
the bridge (O'Connor, 1971). The most significant of these decisions being:

• Main span length – usually the first decision made and as the preferable structure for long
spans, most suspension bridges are used to provide a crossing over a navigable waterway.
• Sag-to-span ratio of the main cable span – typically dictated by the span length, tower
foundations and clearance requirements, the sag/span ration will almost certainly lie
between one-eighth to one-twelfth of the span length.
• Main span length to side span length ratio – primarily governed by most economical
position to construct the cable anchors, but also must not be greater than 50% of the span
length due to the effects on the vertical stiffness of the main bridge span. (Ryall, Et Al, 2000)

Further to the design decisions above the designer must also specify:
• Side span supports (cable or towers)
• Variety of deck structure (open truss stiffening girder, plate girder, box girder)
• Necessary clearance below
the deck structure

The complexity of establishing the optimum values for the

criteria above is evident, and the only available method to
achieve this is to evaluate the total cost of a variety of
suspension bridge designs, allowing for modifications of each
of them within a range of values suitable for the proposed site.

Design Codes

A bridge designer should use EN

1990 for the basis of design,
together with EN 1991 for actions,
EN 1992 to EN 1995 (depending on
the material) for the structural
design and detailing, EN 1997 for
geotechnical aspects and EN 1998
for actions, EN 1992 to EN 1995
(depending on the material) for the Figure 12 Suspension Bridge Components
 9
3. Structural Components
Specifications

structural design and detailing, EN 1997 for geotechnical aspects and EN 1998 for design against
earthquakes. The main Eurocode parts used for the design of concrete, steel and composite
bridges are given in Table II. These codes are calibrated to achieve a uniform level of structural
safety for ordinary loading situations (i.e. self-weight). Thus, probabilistic methods can
subsequently be used to calibrate the safety factors for loads and/or design situations that are not
covered by these codes of practice (Poljansek Et Al, 2012).

3.1 Main Towers

Towers are an essential component in a suspension bridge structure, they are fundamental in
providing support to the main cable. Their secondary functions include ensuring that they are at
the correct height for the specified cable sag to occur above the stiffening girder and offer support
to the main and end spans of the stiffening girder. In terms of the loading the towers experience,
the dominant is an axial load applied by the main cables at the tower tops where the saddles are
located. However, there is also the load from the stiffening girder directly into the vertical element,
seismic loading and any wind loads transferred from the cables and bridge deck to be considered.
Main towers can be classified into two groups, longitudinal or transverse
direction. Longitudinal direction towers can be further divided into rigid,
flexible, and locking (Fig 13). As the towers are restrained by the cables at
the top and the foundations at the bottom, structurally, they can be
considered as pinned at both ends. Flexible towers are commonly used in
long-span suspension bridges, rigid towers for multi span suspension
bridges to provide essential stiffness to the bridge, and locking towers
used for short span suspension bridges. Transverse direction towers are
classified into portal or diagonally braced types. The prevention of
buckling is a key consideration in the design of towers in suspension
bridges due to the excessive compressive force transferred vertically
down into the foundations. However, with careful design this vertical
compressive force can be advantageous. The heavy weight of the steel
cables and the deck suspended from the cables is transferred down into
the towers, which helps the bridge to stay standing because the weight
supported by the towers is directed into the ground, reinforcing the
tower feet into the ground and keeping the bridge upright (Chen & Duan,
2000).

Architecturally the towers also provide the opportunity to offer the Figure 13 Tower Types,
Left top down (Truss, Portal, Combined)
client with a structure that satisfies the aesthetical criteria in the brief. Right top down (Rigid, Flexible, Rocker)
It was Roebling, when presenting his Brookylyn bridge proposal in
1867, who once said “the great towers will be ranked as national monuments. As a great work of
art and a successful specimen of advance bridge engineering” (Billington, 1983).
 10
3. Structural Components
Specifications

3.1.1 Maivn Towers – Materials

Cost is the leading factor when specifying the material for the towers, reinforced concrete
materials must be compared to fabricated steel. As the towers are loaded in compression, concrete
is the obvious choice. However due to the excessive self-weight a concrete tower will create an
uneconomical foundation may be required when compared with a steel tower of similar
proportions (Ryall, Et Al, 2000).

3.1.2 Main Towers – Design

As the towers are predominantly axially loaded induced by the

main cables with additional bending from the eccentricity of the
applied actions, the cross section of the tower is a crucial
element. It must therefore be designed with the material at the
maximum practical distance from the centroid to ensure the
most effective column section is achieved. Due to the structural Figure 14 Typical Tower Cross Sections (concrete, steel)
properties offered, a rectangular cross section is commonly the design of choice. If the tower is
constructed of concrete reinforcement is incorporated to add tension resistance for the bending
moments applied. If the section is formed of steel, then four stiffened plates are connected (Fig.
14) (Ryall, Et Al, 2000).

3.2 Cables
For modern long-span suspension bridges, cold drawn and galvanized steel wires are generally
used, the first example of this was in the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883. Strands are
wound into a circular shape to form one main cable from which the suspender cables are attached.
This type has been used in almost all modern long-span suspension bridges. Suspender cables
attaching the deck to the main cable and can be steel rods, bars or wire ropes (Chen & Duan, 2000).

The cables, towers, and anchorages are the primary load carrying system of the bridge with the
cable profile in each span creating an equilibrium polygon for the loading of that span. Main cables
are primarily subject to axial tensile stress, although there are some bending and compression
stresses, mainly from the tower, splay saddles, the cable clamps and the anchorages. Until
relatively recently the generally adopted design philosophy for main cable design was based on a
working stress approach in which the maximum stress derived from the most adverse combination
of the specified nominal design loadings was
compared with an allowable stress derived by
applying a single safety factor to the ultimate
tensile strength of the cable wire, as unlike
weldable structural steels, high strength wire
does not have a clearly defined yield point.
Figure 15 Suspension Bridge Load Distribution
 11
3. Structural Components
Specifications

To ascertain the maximum allowable tensile stress in the main cables a working stress design
philosophy should be adopted, this is project specific however in practice has been taken as 40-
45% of the minimum guaranteed ultimate tensile stress of the cables. The reason for this method is
because national bridge design codes do not specify allowable stresses for parallel cables due to
the relative infrequency of suspension bridge designs when compared with non-cable supported
bridges. A more rational approach to finding the structural design safety margins is to apply limit
state design principles, this requires comparisons between what has been previously been
accepted in practice with the overall safety margin obtained by combining the strength
determination (γm) and loading (γF) partial factors to be made. The predominant loading for long-
span suspension bridges is the dead load of the cables and deck structure which can represent
between 80 and 90% of the total loading, and as a result the effective partial factor γF on the total
loading is quite low (approximately) 1.1–1.2). This requires the m factors to be applied to the
determination of cable tensile strength should be of the order 1.8 on ultimate tensile strength or
1.4 on the 0.2% proof strength of the cable (Ryall, Et Al, 2000).

Predominantly there are three main varieties of strand used in suspension bridge design, these are:

• Spiral Bridge strands - manufactured by the helical winding of multiple layers of round steel
wires onto a straight centre core wire. The helical twist of the wires results in a decrease of
around 15–25% in the stiffness of the strand relative to that of plain straight wires and
reduces the strand strength to around 90%.
• Locked coil strand - produced by the helical winding of multiple layers of round steel wires
onto a straight centre core wire. They differ from spiral bridge strands in that the final
layers of wires are made up of interlocking Z-shaped wires, giving a larger proportion of
wire area to strand area and, more importantly, a smooth easily protected exterior surface.
Their stiffness and other characteristics are generally like those of spiral strands.
• Parallel wire cables - Parallel wire cables are the most widely used type of cable, and consist
of the required number of individual wires, laid straight and parallel throughout the
complete cable length from anchorage to anchorage and compacted together into a single
mass of parallel wires contained within a circular profile. Parallel wire cables are
constructed by either aerial in situ spinning of the wires, or by the assembly of a number of
prefabricated parallel wire strands. (Parke&Hewson, 2008).

Figure 16 Suspension Bridge Cable Types (Spiral, Locked Coil, Parallel)

 12
3. Structural Components –
Review, Design

3.2.1 Cables – Materials

The basic element for all cables is high-strength steel wire which, for parallel wire cables, will have
a wire diameter of between 5 and 5.5 mm. Wire of this size is generally produced
with a tensile strength of 1570 N/mm2, and a 0.2% proof stress of around 1200 N/mm2, but higher-
strength wire with a minimum tensile strength of 1800 N/mm2 is now produced, and has been used
for the cables of the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge. The wire is produced from steel rods with a much higher
carbon content than weldable structural steels, and its high tensile strength is obtained by cold
drawing through a series of dies to reduce its diameter from the initial rod size down to the final
wire size, producing wire with consistently accurate dimensions, and a smooth flaw free surface.
The production of high-strength wire by this method does however have the disadvantage that the
resultant wire has low ductility, with the elongation at fracture being typically only about 4%
(Parke&Hewson, 2008).

The main cables are the primary structural elements of the bridge
and, although limited local replacement of corroded outer wires
has been carried out on some earlier bridges, the complete in-
service replacement of a large diameter compacted parallel wire
cable would be an extremely difficult and expensive operation that
has thus far never been carried out. It is therefore essential to
provide the main cables with corrosion protection which, with Figure 17 Golden Gate
Bridge Cable Cross Section
reasonable care and maintenance, will ensure that the cables will
have a service life equal to the design life of the bridge. Traditionally, parallel wire cables have been
protected against corrosion by a three-stage process, with the primary protection being the
galvanised zinc coating on the wires, combined with coating the exterior surface of the cable by a
red lead and linseed oil paste contained by circumferential wrapping with tightly spaced low-
strength galvanised steel wire to prevent, as far as possible, water ingress into the cable, and a final
series of coats of paint applied over the wrapping wire. As the use of lead-based products is no
longer environmentally acceptable, wrapping pastes based on metallic zinc powder have been
employed on recently constructed bridges such as the Hoga Kusten and Storebaelt (Ryall, Et Al, 2000).

3.2.2 Cables – Design

Whether comprised of a single small-diameter wire, or an assembly of such wires laid parallel or
wound in a helical formation, all cables have a very low resistance to bending moments and shear
forces, and have a negligible capacity to resist compressive buckling forces.
For most practical calculations, the bending stiffness of such cables can be neglected, and the cable
treated as being a perfectly flexible tensile member incapable of resisting bending moments and
axial compressive forces. Clearly in the absence of any bending and shear capacity, the only way in
which such a cable can resist vertical (e.g. gravitational) loading is by adopting a shape in which at
all points the vertical component of the net tensile force is in equilibrium with the applied vertical
loading. To achieve this equilibrium, angular changes must occur at each point where vertical load
is applied, and these result in the familiar vertical curvature of suspended cables.
 13
3. Structural Components –
Review, Design

In order for a suspended cable to sustain any transverse loading, its ends must be secured against
horizontal movement, and a horizontal reacting force is thus generated at these ends. In all cases
where the cable is subjected only to vertical (i.e. gravitational) forces, with no horizontally applied
loads, these horizontal end reactions must necessarily be equal, and it follows that the horizontal
component of the cable tension must therefore be the same at all points along its length.
(Parke&Hewson, 2008).

3.3 Anchorages
The anchorages secure the ends of the main cables and transfer their force into the ground. The
direction of the cable forces is determined by the side span geometry, but is predominantly
horizontal with a smaller upward component. The requirement for the anchorages to resist a large,
predominantly horizontal force makes their design difficult unless reasonably good ground
conditions (preferably sound rock) exist where they are positioned (Parke&Hewson, 2008). Anchors
are crucial components in suspension bridge design and construction, bearing most of the weight
and load from the bridge which is transferred via the cables to the anchorage system. Anchorage
structures generally include the foundation, anchor block, bent block, cable anchor frames and a
protective housing. The cables inside the anchorage are spread over a large area to evenly
distribute the load and to prevent them breaking free or suffering damage caused by the
concentrated cable forces. The anchorage blocks are usually made out of concrete and weigh
more than the total weight of the cables holding up the deck. They have to bear a huge proportion
of the weight of the roadway and must be strong enough to withstand loads from road traffic
crossing the bridge. There are two common anchorage choices, gravity or tunnel. Gravity
anchorage, Fig 17, uses huge concrete blocks, the mass of the block counters the tension of the
main cables, the majority of suspension bridges use this form of anchorage system. Tunnel
anchorage, Fig 17 transfers the forces from the main cables directly into the ground, it’s therefore
crucial to ensure a full geotechnical survey is carried out to establish that the right geological
conditions are present before this anchorage system can be used (Chen & Duan, 2000).

Figure 18 Anchorage Systems (Gravity, Tunnel)

 14
3. Structural Components –
Review, Design

3.4 Stiffened Girders (Bridge Deck)

The primary function of the suspended deck is to provide a stable and level traffic platform with
acceptable deflection characteristics, and if the combined main cable and sus- pended structure
weight is sufficiently large the cable gravity stiffness may be sufficient to achieve this, the George
Washington Bridge (as originally constructed) being an example. This is not, however, in general an
efficient solution, and the inclusion of some longitudinal bending stiffness in the suspended
structure is usually required to distribute applied traffic loadings to the main cables, and prevent
the development of unacceptable local deflections and deck slopes at the location of applied
concentrated loads.

This stiffness requirement is effectively related to the hanger spacing and as this is a small
proportion of the span length, the contribution of the deck bending stiffness to the overall vertical
stiffness of the structure is generally insignificant, with that of the cable system dominating. This is
not however the case for torsion where the torsional stiffness of the deck can make a significant
contribution to the overall structure stiffness, with consequent increase in the torsional natural
frequency and improvement in aero- dynamic properties. A high torsional stiffness is therefore an
important requirement of the deck structure.

It is a characteristic of all bridges that the contribution of dead load to total bridge loading rapidly
increases with increase in span length, and for suspension bridges this effect is illustrated in Figure
17 showing, for a single span with a given allowable cable stress and span/sag ratio, the rapid
increase in the ratio of cable weight to suspended deck weight as span length is increased. An
efficient design therefore requires a suspended structure with the minimum self-weight consistent
with the achievement of other design requirements, and structural steel is therefore invariably
used for the deck and stiffening girder. An important contribution to the minimisation of dead load
is the use of an orthotropically stiffened steel deck plate, combined with the thinnest surfacing
layer that will provide an adequate deck fatigue life. Any reduction in deck weight also produces
savings in the other elements of the cable system (hangers, towers and anchorages), with the
benefit becoming increasingly significant as the span length increases. The options for the
suspended deck stiffening girder structure are:

• an open truss stiffening girder with a separate traffic deck

• a solid web stiffening girder with a separate traffic deck
• a box girder structure combining the traffic deck and stiffening functions. (Ryall, Et Al, 2000)

Figure 19 Deck Configurations (Truss, Plate, Box)

 15
3. Structural Components –
Review, Design

3.5 Cable Supports and Attachments

3.5.1 Hangers

The suspender cables or hanger ropes connect the decking to the steel cables and help shape the
bridge. The suspender cables prevent the roadway from swaying out of control and help to
reinforce the decking. They can be steel rods, steel bars, stranded wire ropes or parallel wire
strands. Stranded wire rope is most common in modern suspension bridges. Stranded wire rope is
most common in modern suspension bridges. The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge and the Kurushima Kaikyo
Bridge, use parallel wire strands covered with polyethylene tubing as a barrier to corrosion (Chen &
Duan, 2000).

3.5.2 Tower Saddles

At the towers, each main cable must be supported by a saddle consisting of a longitudinally curved
trough to deflect the cable through the required angle and which is supported on a grid of
longitudinal stiffeners and radial ribs to transmit and diffuse the cable load into the supporting
tower structure (Parke&Hewson, 2008). These saddles support forces from the cable pulling
downwards in to the tower, the saddle itself can move forwards and backwards via rollers or a
rocker. This is to allow for expansion and contraction of the steel.

3.5.3 Anchorage Saddles

At the anchorages a splay saddle separates the cable into its individual strands, deviating them
both laterally and vertically to their individual connection points within the anchorage. In order that
strands can be placed layer by layer during cable construction, without the need for tem- porary
restraint, all strands should be deviated downwards relative to the cable centreline at the lower
end of the side span, to produce an overall downwards deflection of the cable centreline
(Parke&Hewson, 2008).
 16
4. Analysis Methods

4.1 Classical Theory

The elastic theory and the deflection theory are in-plane analyses for the global suspension bridge
system. In the theories, the entire suspension bridge is assumed a continuous body and the hanger
ropes are closely spaced. Both of these analytical methods assume:

• The cable is completely flexible.

• The stiffening girder is horizontal and straight.
• The geometric moment of inertia is constant.
• The dead load of the stiffening girder and the cables is uniform.
• The coordinates of the cable are parabolic.
• All dead loads are taken into the cables.

The difference between the two theories is whether cable deflection resulting from live load is
considered. The bending moment, M(x), of the stiffening girder after loading the live load is shown
as follows:

Elastic Theory:
𝑀(𝑥) = 𝑀0 (𝑥) – 𝐻𝑝 𝑦(𝑥)

Deflection Theory:

𝑀(𝑥) = 𝑀0 (𝑥) – 𝐻𝑝 𝑦(𝑥) – (𝐻𝑤 + 𝐻𝑝 )𝜂(𝑥)

Where:

𝑀0 (𝑥) - bending moment resulting from the live load applied to a simple beam of the same span
length as the stiffening girder
𝑦(𝑥) - longitudinal position of the cable
𝜂(𝑥) - deflection of the cable and the stiffening girder due to live load
𝐻𝑤 , 𝐻𝑝 - cable horizontal tension due to dead load and live load, respectively

4.2 Additional Design Consideration

As well as the above design theory the bridge designer must also consider the Aerodynamic
performance of the structure, the seismic design and also the structural redundancy should a
collision between a road going or water going vehicle.
 17
References

Billington, D. (1983). The tower and the bridge. New York: Basic Books.

Chen, W. and Duan, L. (2000). Bridge engineering handbook. Boca Raton [etc.]: CRC Press.

Hamid Yaghoubi, 2018. Bridge Engineering. InTechOpen.

Hürriyet Daily News. (2017). Groundbreaking ceremony for bridge over Dardanelles to take place on
March 18 - Latest News. [online] Available at:
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/groundbreaking-ceremony-for-bridge-over-dardanelles-to-
take-place-on-march-18-110948 [Accessed 11 Feb. 2020].

Kawada, T., Scott, R. and Ohashi, H. (2014). History of the Modern Suspension Bridge. Reston:
American Society of Civil Engineers.

Leonardo Fernández Troyano (2003-11-30). Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective. Thomas

Telford. p. 775. ISBN 0-7277-3215-3. pages 517-520

Lin, W. & Yoda, T. (2017). Bridge engineering: Classifications, design loading, and analysis methods.

Mahmoud, K. (2003). Recent Developments in Bridge Engineering. Lisse: Balkema.

Metcalfe, L. (1970), Nuffield Resources for Learning Project. Bridges and bridge building. London:
Blandford Press.

O'Connor, C. (1971). Design of bridge superstructures. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Parke, G. and Hewson, N. (2008). ICE manual of bridge engineering. London: Thomas Telford.

Poljansek, M., Tsionis, G. and Pinto, A. (2012). Bridge design to Eurocodes. Luxembourg:
Publications Office.

R. L. Brockenbrough, Frederick S. Merritt (2005). Structural Steel Designer's Handbook: AISC,

AASHTO, AISI, ASTM, AREMA, and ASCE-07 Design Standards (4 ed.). McGraw-Hill Professional.
p. 800. ISBN 0-07-143218-3. page 15.7
Ryall, M.J., Parke, G. A. R, Harding, J. E, 2000. The Manual of Bridge Engineering. London: Thomas
Telford.

Schlaich, J., 2004. Buchbesprechung: Bridge Engineering— A Global Perspective von L. F. Troyano.
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 99(7), pp.623–624. 10.1002/best.200490153.
Seward, D. (2009). Understanding structures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tom F. Peters (1987-01-01). Transitions in Engineering: Guillaume Henri Dufour and the Early 19th
Century Cable Suspension Bridges. Birkhauser. p. 260. ISBN 3-7643-1929-1.
 18
References

Figure Credits

Figure 1 Primitive suspension bridge Metcalfe 1970

Figure 2 The Winch Bridge in Britain Kawada Et Al 2014
Figure 3 The Clifton Suspension Bridge Fineartamerica
Figure 4 The Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge Travel-around-japan
Figure 5 Akashi Kaikyo Bridge structure comparisons Akashi-kaikyo-bridge
Figure 6 The Humber Bridge Humber-bridge
Figure 7 Construction Technique Underspanned, Stressed Ribbon, Simple
Figure 8 Number of Spans Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 9 Cable Anchorage Method Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 10 Stiffening Girder Supports Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 11 Hanger Rope Orientation Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 12 Suspension Bridge Components Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 13 Tower Types Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 14 Typical Tower Cross Sections Ryall, Et Al, 2000
Figure 15 Suspension Bridge Load Distribution How-stuff-works-civil
Figure 16 Suspension Bridge Cable Types Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 17 Golden Gate Bridge Cable Cross Section GGB-Exhibit
Figure 18 Anchorage Systems (Gravity, Tunnel) Chen & Duan 2000
Figure 19 Deck Configurations (Truss, Plate, Box) Ryall, Et Al, 2000
 19
Appendix

Bridge Loading

Figure A: Loads on bridges

Cables
For corrosion protection, the wire is galvanised after final drawing, the weight of zinc coating being
typically 300 g/m2, and for storage and delivery, the final wire product is formed into coils of 250–
1200 kg, with an internal diameter of about 1500 mm, which is sufficient to ensure that, when
uncoiled, the wire is sufficiently straight for subsequent cable spinning or strand manufacturing
operations. As the construction of large suspension bridges occurs relatively infrequently, wire for
the construction of parallel wire cables is produced specifically for each project. Longspan bridges
require very large quantities of wire, and an extended production period before the
commencement of cable work at site is generally required, leading to the need for temporary
storage of large quantities of wire coils in a controlled environment to prevent corrosion damage
 20
Appendix

Design Procedure
A general design procedure for a suspension bridge superstructure is shown in Figure b. Most
rational structure for a particular site is selected from the result of preliminary design over various
alternatives. Then final detailed design proceeds.

Figure B: Design procedure for

superstructure of a bridge

Performance Failures
Bridges are important assets. Their main function is to provide uninterrupted and save traffic
(transport and people) flow over man or nature made structures/obstacle. To ensure that existing
bridges are safe for use and fit for purpose regular condition assessments in a form of inspections
are practiced. The inspection regime consists of multiple inspections – general, principal and
special inspections. General inspections are carried out no longer than two years after the previous
general or principal inspection. General inspections are mainly based on evaluation of data
collected using visual observations.
Several early suspension bridges were designed without the appreciation of wind effects. Large
deflections were developed in the flexible decks and wind loading created unstable oscillations. The
problem was largely solved by using inclined hangers. The suspension bridge is essentially a
catenary cable prestressed by dead weight. The cables are guided over the support towers to
ground anchors. The stiffened deck is supported mainly by vertical or inclined hangers.

Millennium Bridge – A Case Study

Spectacular cable supported pedestrian bridges serve as city landmarks and an integral part of
urban regeneration. To mark the turn of the Millennium, the City of London Corporation ran a
 21
Appendix

competition to design and build a bridge across the Thames, the first in 100 years. Designed by Sir
Norman Foster, the Millennium Bridge was described as an innovative "blade of light".

The design of the bridge's suspension

had the supporting cables situated
below the deck, which gave it its ‘blade’
appearance. The bridge featured two
river piers reaching a total length of
325 m and a 4m wide deck constructed
in aluminium. Four suspension cables
on each side of the deck were tensioned
to pull against the piers on each bank,
finally anchored into a thick concrete
Fig C The London Millenium Bridge
slab.

The bridge opened on 10 June 2000 and the interest generated by the bridge on opening day
surpassed expectations, up to 100,000 people crossed the bridge on the opening day, with as many
as 2000 people on the bridge at any one time. Shortly after the opening, visitors reported that the
bridge began to sway from side to side. It appeared that this lateral movement occurred when a
large number of pedestrians were on the bridge. The movement was not continuous and died
down if the number of people on the bridge reduced or stopped walking and further reduced by
the fact that beyond a certain level, many of the pedestrians started to experience difficulty in
walking, holding the balustrades for support. The bridge was closed two days later on 12 June
2000.

Following closure, investigations were undertaken to determine the cause of the large amplitude
vibrations. It was discovered that the Millennium Bridge movement was caused by sideways
pedestrian loads i.e. walking. As the pedestrians’ steps caused slight sideways movements of the
bridge, it became more comfortable for the pedestrians to walk in synchronisation with the
movement of the bridge, instinctively they synchronized their pace with the motion of the bridge,
this in turn amplified the movement. This continued to the point beyond which pedestrians could
no longer keep their balance and had to stop walking and hold the handrail and the lateral
movement subsided. This phenomenon is known as ‘synchronous lateral excitation’ (SLE) and had
been seen before with the Toda Park Bridge in Japan which exhibited similar vibrations. Analysis of
video footage revealed that the head motion of approximately 20% of the pedestrians was
synchronous with the motion of the bridge.
Tests conducted in the laboratory and on site identified it was possible to calculate the number of
pedestrians that will cause excessive sideways movement. They discovered a similar effect can
occur on any type of bridge with a lateral frequency of less than 1.3 Hz, the normal walking pace of
pedestrians. A critical number of pedestrians is required to create the phenomenon, directly
related to the mass of the bridge, its frequency and its damping. The test results confirmed the
observed behaviour of the bridge on opening day and made two key discoveries;
 22
Appendix

i) there is no lower limit to the frequencies that could be affected by SLE but there was an upper
limit of 1.3Hz;
ii) pedestrians act as ‘negative dampers’ and when they reach a critical number they reduce the
inherent structural damping of the bridge to zero, causing lateral motion.

21st Century Modifications

Limiting pedestrian access to the bridge was ruled out which left two options; increase the stiffness
thus increasing the resonant frequency or increase the damping of the bridge. Making the bridge
stiffer was not feasible as it would require significant structural augmentation and drastically
change the bridge’s aesthetics. Instead, the resonance was controlled by retrofitting 37 viscous
fluid dampers to dissipate energy, including 17 chevron dampers, 4 vertical to ground dampers to
control lateral and vertical movements and 16 pier dampers to control lateral and torsional
movements. The work took until January 2002 to complete and cost £5m. Following extensive
testing, the bridge was reopened on 22 February 2002 and has not been subject to significant
vibration since. In spite of all the remedial work, it is affectionately known as the "wobbly bridge”.
The phenomenon of synchronous lateral excitation seen on the opening day of the Millennium
Bridge was not unique to this design, the same movement could occur on any future or existing
bridge with a lateral frequency under approximately 1.3 Hz providing the critical number of
pedestrians were on the bridge. The non-linear nature of the effect means that satisfactory past
performance of a bridge is not indicative of its future performance. Standard bridge design
procedures must thoroughly investigate the loading condition to avoid SLE.

Stabilising the London Millennium Bridge; Tony Fitzpatrick FREng and Roger Ridsdill Smith; Ingenia
Online