Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 1

Effect of Tower Stiffness on Four-span Suspension Bridges

Dong-Ho CHOI Sun Gil GWON Ho-Sung NA

Professor, Ph.D. Ph.D. Student Ph.D.
Dept. of Civil and Dept. of Civil and Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Environmental Engineering,
Hanyang University, Seoul, Hanyang University, Seoul, Hanyang University, Seoul,
Korea Korea Korea
samga@hanyang.ac.kr verysoon@hanyang.ac.kr saintna@hanyang.ac.kr

Summary
In this paper, an analytic method for a four-span suspension bridge is presented using the deflection
theory. The girders of each span are considered as simply-supported equivalent beams with axial
tensions, and an iterative method such as the Newton-Raphson method is performed due to
nonlinearity of the differential equations for each girder. And then, the results such as the
deflections and bending moments of the girder under various load cases are compared with the
finite element analysis for verification. Finally, parametric analysis for the stiffness variation of the
center tower is performed.
Keywords: Four-span suspension bridge; deflection theory; tower stiffness.

1. Introduction
Typical three-span suspension bridges need a center anchorage for construction of strait crossing
bridges connecting very long distances unless they do not have a very long span length. On the
other hand, multi-span suspension bridges that have more than three main towers and two main
spans do not need it. Without this anchorage, they have more constructability, better aesthetics and
reduced construction costs [1]. However, multi-span suspension bridges have not been the object of
much research and the bridges have had problems because their structural systems have a larger
deflection than regular three-span suspension bridges [2].
This paper presents an analytic method for multi-span suspension bridges, particularly a four-span
suspension bridge using the deflection theory. The girders of each span are considered as simply-
supported equivalent beams with axial tensions and the treatment of girders which are continuous at
the towers is incorporated into the solution algorithm by the continuity moments at the supports of
beams. An iterative method or Iterative methods such as the Newton-Raphson method is performed
due to nonlinearity of the differential equations for each girder. And then, the results such as the
deflections and bending moments of the girder under various load cases are compared with the
finite element analysis for verification. Finally, parametric analysis for the stiffness variation of
center tower is performed for understanding the structural behaviour of the bridge such as the slip
safety of the main cable.

2. Analysis
The deflection theory has been used widely as the analytic method for preliminary design of
suspension bridges. In the theory, the following governing equation for girder is derived using the
equilibrium condition of cable elements and the differential equation of a beam [3].
8f
Eg I g viv − ( H d + H q ) v′′ = q + H q × y′′ = q − H q ×
(1)
L2
where EgIg is the flexural stiffness of girder, Hd is the horizontal force of main cable under dead
load, Hq is the horizontal force of main cable produced by live load, q is the live load intensity per
unit length acting on girder, y is the main cable ordinate under dead load, ν is the deflection of main
cable and girder caused by live load, f is the sag of main cable, and L is the distance between two
supports of cable.
2 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

Eq. (1) is the same with the governing equation of a simply-supported beam under the axial tensile
force Hd+Hq, and the vertical distributed load q-Hq(8f/L2) and then, the girders of a four-span
suspension bridge can be considered as four equivalent beams, as shown in Fig. 1 [4].

Fig. 1: Equivalent beams of four-span suspension bridge

In Fig. 1, EtIt is the flexural stiffness of the towers and EcAc is the axial stiffness of the main cable.
Each beam is subjected to tension N= Hd+Hq, upward load by hangers Hq(8f/L2), live load q, and
moment at the support M for considering the girders which are continuous at the towers. By solving
the gorverning equations using the iterative computations, we can obtain the results for the behavior
of a four-span suspension bridge.

3. Verification
To verify the results of the analytic method applied to a four-span suspension bridge, the deflections
and bending moments of the girder are compared with those of the finite element analysis using the
model based on Saecheonnyeon Bridge, a multi-span suspension bridge in Korea currently under
construction. The model properties are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Model properties

Modulus of elasticity
L1 225 m Ec 2×108 MPa
(main cable)
Modulus of elasticity
L2 650 m Eg 2.1×108 MPa
(girder)
Span length
Area
L3 650 m Ac 0.1166 m2
(main cable)
Moment of inertia
L4 225 m Ig 0.4879 m4
(girder)

f1 9.9 m EtIt1 2.5×109 kN.m2

f2 81 m Stiffness of tower EtIt2 8.4×109 kN.m2

Sag
(main cable)
f3 81 m EtIt3 2.5×109 kN.m2

f4 9.9 m Dead load d 88 kN/m

 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 3

As shown in Fig. 2, the three load cases including symmetrical and asymmetrical conditions are
considered with the load intensity of 38.1 kN/m based on Korean bridge design specifications.

Fig. 2: 3 Live load cases

The comparison results for the deflection and bending moment of girder from the analytic method
analysis and the finite element analysis are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. The figures show that the
two results are almost same under the various load cases and the responses under LC3 are relatively
higher than other conditions. In conclusion, the critical load condition for four-span suspension
bridges is the highly asymmetrical condition such as LC3.

4
LC1 Analytic method
4
LC2 Analytic method
4
LC3 Analytic method
FEM FEM FEM

2 2 2
Deflection (m)

Deflection (m)

Deflection (m)

0 0 0

-2 -2 -2

-4 -4 -4

-6 -6 -6
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Distance (m) Distance (m) Distance (m)
Fig. 3: Comparison for deflection of girder

LC1 Analytic method LC2 Analytic method LC3 Analytic method

FEM FEM FEM
60,000 60,000 60,000
40,000 40,000 40,000
Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

Moment (kN.m)

20,000 20,000 20,000

0 0 0
-20,000 -20,000 -20,000
-40,000 -40,000 -40,000
-60,000 -60,000 -60,000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Distance (m) Distance (m) Distance (m)

Fig. 4: Comparison for bending moment of girder

4. Parametric analysis
In order to understand the relationship between the stiffness of the center tower and the slip safety
of the main cable at the top of the center tower for four-span suspension bridges, the simple
parametric analysis is performed. Stiffness ratio between the side and the center tower is varied
from 1:1 to 1:5 and the slip safety is estimated by Eq. (2). As the load condition, LC3 in Fig. 2 is
considered with intensity of 10.552 kN/m.
μθ
SF = (2)
ln(Tmax / Tmin )
4 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

In Eq. (2) , SF represents the slip safety of the main cable, θ is the sum of both cable angles from
the horizontal line at the top of the center tower, Tmax and Tmin are the tensile forces of the main
cable at the left and right side of the center tower, respectively. μ represents the friction coefficient
between the main cable and the surface of saddle as 0.15.
As shown in Fig. 5, increasing the stiffness of center tower reduces the maximum deflection of
girder but also reduces the slip safety due to increase in difference between the cable tensile forces.
Tensile force of main cable (kN)

Max. deflection of girder (m)

76000 Tmax 3
Deflection
3

Slip safety of main cable

Tmin Slip Safety
72000
2 2

68000

1 1
64000

60000 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Stiffness ratio of towers Stiffness ratio of towers

(a) Variation of tensile force (b) Maximum deflection and slip safety
Fig. 5: Results for variation of stiffness ratio

Determination of the stiffness of the center tower is very important to control the deflection of the
girders because a four-span suspension bridge is more flexible than a three-span suspension bridge.
However, increasing the stiffness only for the deflection control makes the slip safety reduced.
Consequently, determination of the stiffness is highly essential in design.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, the analytic method for a four-span suspension bridge is presented. Based on the
results of verification, the method can be used in the preliminary design for a four-span suspension
bridge. Moreover, the slip safety can be easily obtained without the finite element analysis requiring
initial equilibrium state analysis under dead load and determination of the stiffness satisfying both
of the deflection and the slip safety is highly essential in design for the bridge.

6. Acknowledgements
This work is a part of a research project supported by the Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and
Maritime Affairs (MLTM) through Core Research Project 1 of Super Long Span Bridge R&D
Center. The authors wish to express their gratitude for the financial support. This research was
supported by WCU (World Class University) program through the National Research Foundation of
Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (R32-2008-000-20042-0).

7. References
[1] Nogami K., Okubo A., and Morizono Y., “Elasto-plastic behaviors and Ultimate Strength of
4 Super Long-Span Suspension Bridges”, JSCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 56A,
2010, pp. 1-10.
[2] Gimsing N.J., Cable supported bridges: concept and design, 2nd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, London, 1998.
[3] Irvine H.M., Cable structures, The MIT press, Massachusetts, 1981.
[4] Wollmann G.P., “Preliminary analysis of suspension bridges”, ASCE Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2001, pp. 227-233.