EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

20,707-721 (1991)

MODELLING OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE FOR DYNAMIC

ANALYSIS

JOHN C. WILSON* AND WAYNE GRAVELLE?

Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamillon. Ontario Canada. L8S 4L7

SUMMARY
The subject of dynamic response of cable-stayed bridges has received increasing attention in recent years as this type of
bridge becomes ever more popular. In most publications on the dynamic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges, only cursory
treatment is given to many of the details of the actual development of a suitable finite element model. This paper provides
a detailed description of the development of one class of linear elastic finite element model for the dynamic analysis of a
cable-stayed bridge. The bridge modelled in this study is the Quincy Bayview Bridge in Illinois. The translation of
structural data into a form useful for formulation of a three-dimensional finite element model is presented in some detail,
including evaluation of translational and rotational mass and stiffnessesfor the deck, modelling of the towers and cables,
modelling of the bearings and considerations for accurate geometric representation between the model and the full-scale
structure. In a companion paper, the modal behaviour predicted by the finite element model is compared to measured
ambient vibration properties of the full-scale structure.

INTRODUCTION
The investigation of aerodynamic stability and earthquake response of long span cable-stayed bridges is very
dependent upon a knowledge of their dynamic characteristics, such as modal frequencies, mode shapes and
modal damping values, and also a description of the dynamic loading. To address some of these issues several
investigations have been undertaken in recent years to examine both the dynamic and seismic behaviour of
cable-stayed bridges5*9-12,l4 A recent contribution to the engineering of cable-stayed bridges was initiated
in 1987 when an ambient vibration survey was conducted on the Quincy Bayview Bridge, a new cable-stayed
bridge crossing the Mississippi River at Quincy, I l l i n o i ~ . ~The
. ' ~ objective of this project was to obtain full-
scale measurements of the dynamic response of the bridge to wind and trafficexcitations. The data collected
on this project have been processed to evaluate modal frequencies, mode shapes and obtain estimates of
modal damping of the bridge structure. The work described in this paper focuses on a detailed description of
the development of a three-dimensional finite element model for dynamic analysis of the Quincy Bayview
Bridge. The model was developed to complement the experimental results of the ambient vibration survey. A
companion paper' compares the dynamic properties (modal frequencies and mode shapes) predicted by the
finite element model with those measured during a full-scale ambient vibration survey of the bridge, thereby
providing a detailed assessment and validation of the overall formulation and accuracy of the finite element
model. A two paper format has been used in order to focus on many of the details of development of the finite
element model, and at the same time to provide a complete presentation and discussion of both analytic and
experimental results.

*Assistant Professor.
'Graduate Student.

0098-8847/91/080707-1 S07.50 Received 21 September 1989

0 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 3 January 1991
708 J. C. WILSON A N D W. GRAVELLE

DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE

The Quincy Bayview Bridge, shown in Figure 1, was designed in 19836and construction was completed in
1987. The bridge consists of two H-shaped concrete towers, double-plane fan type cables, and a composite
concrete-steel girder bridge deck. The main span is 900 ft (274 m) and there are two equal side spans of 440 ft
(134 m) for a total length of 1780 ft (542 m). The tops of the towers are 232 ft (71 m) from the waterline. There
are a total of 56 cables, 28 supporting the main span and 14 supporting each side span. The width of the deck
from centre to centre of cables is 40 ft (12 m).
A typical split cross-section of the actual bridge deck is shown in Figure 2(a). The left half of the figure
shows a section at one of the cable anchors, the right half shows a typical section between anchor points.
Figure2(b) is a simplified deck cross-section between anchor points that was used to evaluate physical
properties for the model. The road deck is a 9 in' precast post-tensioned concrete slab 46.5 ft wide with two
non-structural precast parapets (traffic barriers). Five longitudinal steel stringers are spaced at equal
transverse intervals of 7.25 ft. Floor beams transverse to the main girders at equally spaced intervals of 30 ft
transfer stringer loads to two main girders at the outer edges of the deck. The cables are connected to the deck
at the bottom flange of the main girders. At each cable anchor location, supplementary longitudinal beams,
cross-bracing and bearing plates are used for additional support.
Each tower, shown in Figure 3, consists of two concrete legs, with dimensions of 14.5 x 7 ft (the larger
dimension is in the longitudinal direction of the bridge), a lower strut (cross-beam) supporting the deck and
an upper strut connecting the upper legs. There are three changes in the leg cross-section over the height of
the towers. The tower legs below the deck are solid concrete connected by a 4 ft thick stiffening wall placed as
a web, as shown in Figure 3. The second segment of the legs is from the lower strut to 15-5 ft above the deck
level. There is a 3 ft diameter access hole centrally located within the 14.5 x 7 ft selections. The third section
change occurs at 15-5ft above the deck surface and is carried to the top of the towers. In this section the legs
have an interior rectangular access passageway of 3 x 8-5 ft, as shown by cross-section B-B in Figure 3.
The bearing system is illustrated in Figure 4. At each tower there are vertical and horizontal bearings
[Figures qb), qd), qe)], and at the ends of the bridge are tie-down links to the piers [Figures qb), qc)]. At
the towers the vertical steel bearings [Figure qd)] are designed to allow for sliding in the horizontal plane.

Figure 1. The Quincy Bayview Bridge

'I in = 0.0254 m.
MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 709

--
m N-

m
a
J
cn
L
7 10 J. C. WILSON A N D W. GRAVELLE

2'
SECTION A-A

I14I-6. I1
TOWER

SECTION B - B

Figure 3. Elevation view of the bridge tower

Excessive sliding is restricted by the horizontal elastomeric bearings [Figure qe)] placed on the deck at the
towers. The degrees-of-freedomassociated with these bearing systems are discussed in a subsequent section.
The cables are constructed of 0.25in (6-4mm) diameter wires with an ultimate strength of 240 ksi
(1600 MPa) and have cross-sectional areas ranging from 5.4 to 13.9 in'. These are helically wrapped with a
polyethylene covering and are grouted and sealed. The cables are anchored to the main edge girders and floor
 MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 71 1
r S Y H M E T R C A L ABOUT t
T

-CABLE SECTIONS I

TIE-DOWN LINKS
TIE-DOWN LINKS

37
(b)
PLAN

+--E
BOTTOM OF
EDGE GIRDER
TIE-DOWN PIN
UPPER
TIE-DOWN LINK BEARING
SLIDING SURFACE
LOWER BEARING-
LOWER SHOE ASSEMBLY TOP OF TOWER
TIE-DOWN PIN ::,, 4 CROSS-BEAM

TOP OF PIER (d) SIDE ELEVATION

(c) SIDE ELEVATION

LONGITUDINAL BEARINGS
(WEST TOWER O N L Y 1 7 N

TOWER ELASTOMERIC

( BOTH TOWERS I

t OF T O W E ~ DETAIL A , TYPICAL

(4 PLAN PLAN

Figure 4. Details of the cable and bearing systems: (a) cable numbers; (b) bridge dimensions and plan view of the bearings; (c) tie-down
links at the ends of the deck;(d) vertical bearings between deck and cross-beamof tower, (e) horizontal bearings between deck and tower
legs
712 J. C. WILSON AND W. GRAVELLE

beams at 60 ft intervals on the main span, and 63 ft intervals on the side span, and to the upper part of the
towers at 9 ft intervals.

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Engineering investigations of both the linear and non-linear behaviour of cable-stayed bridges (predominate-
ly geometric non-linearity due to cable sag) have been presented by Fleming and Egeseli' and Nazmy and
Abdel-Ghaffar.7-9Results of their investigations indicate that linear and non-linear dynamic analyses yield
similar results and that linear dynamic analysis is generally acceptable. Also stated, however, is that the
stiffness used in the linear dynamic analysis should be the stiffness of the structure as obtained from a non-
linear static analysis corresponding to the dead load deformed state of the bridge. Development of the
present finite element model began by considering dnly linear elastic behaviour in all the elements. Linear
stiffnesses were calculated based on material and geometric properties of the various bridge elements,
without special consideration being given to the load state or deformed geometry of the structure. When the
linear elastic model was fully developed it was found to produce results in close comparison with dynamic
properties measured in the ambient vibration survey. For this reason no attempts were made to
incorporate non-linear static or dynamic features into the model at this stage of the project.
The finite element model was developed using linear elastic beam elements to model the towers and deck,
and truss elements to model the cables. Figure 5(a) shows a line diagram of the model geometry. The deck
was modelled using a single central spine with offset links to accommodate lumped masses and cable anchor
points [Figure 5(b)]. Stiffness was assigned to the spine to simulate the actual stiffness of the deck. The spine
consisted of 29 beam elements, each spanning from one cable anchor location to the next in the x direction in
either 60 ft (main span) or 63 ft (side span) segments. Two rigid links, each 20 ft in length, were placed
horizontally at 90" to the longitudinal axis of the spine at each cable location to achieve the proper offset of
the cables from the centreline of the deck. The cables, modelled using linear elastic truss elements, were
connected to the outer ends of the rigid links. These details are shown in Figure 5(b). To simulate the
eccentricity between the centre of rigidity and centre of mass of the deck, the mass of the deck was placed
below the axis of the deck spine using rigid vertical links. This produced coupling between torsional and
transverse motions of the deck. A total of 149 elements (including rigid links) were used in modelling the
deck.
The following sections provide a detailed description of the evaluation of physical properties of the various
components of the bridge that were required for development of the three-dimensional finite element model.
The structural drawings of the Quincy Bayview Bridge6 were used as the source of geometric and material
information.

DECK
A typical cross-section of the deck includes the concrete deck, two parapets (traffic barriers), five stringers and
two main edge girders. The material properties of the deck used to develop the finite element model were:

Modulus of elasticity: steel 4.32 x lo9 lb/ft2T

concrete 643 x lo* lb/ft2
Unit weight: steel 490 lb/ft3
concrete 150 Ib/ft3
Poisson's ratio: steel 0.30
concrete 0.25

'1 Ib/ft* = 47.88 Pa; 1 lb/ft3 = 16.02 kg/mg.

 MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 713

(b) TRUSS
SPINE
'-- RIGID
LINKS
UMPED MASS
I_
20'-0 I 20'0
2

Figure 5. Complete finite element model of the bridge: (a) line diagram of finite elements; (b) detail showing finite element modelling of
the cross-section of the deck

The following sections describe the procedures that were used to simulate the stiffness and inertia properties
of the full-scale structure.

Vertical stifness
Stiffness of the deck for bending in the vertical direction (second moment of area I,,) was determined for a
typical cross-section of the deck by transforming the concrete road surface to an equivalent area of steel. The
section used in the transformation is shown in Figure 2(b). The parapets (barriers) are non-structural
components and are not included for stiffness. The centroid of the transformed deck area was located 18.9 in
below the centreline of the roadway C14.4 in below the middle of the slab in Figure 2(b)]. The total second
moment of area of the deck about the neutral axis of the transformed section is I,, = 39.5 ft4.

Transverse stiffness
The transverse stiffness (second moment of area 4,) was calculated in the same manner as the vertical
stiffness, producing 4, = 2289 ft4 for a cross-section transformed to steel.

Axial stiffness
The axial stiffness of the deck was based on a cross-sectional area of A = 8.9 ft2 when the concrete slab was
transformed to an equivalent area of steel.

Torsional stiffness
Owing to geometric complexities, the torsional stiffness of the deck was the most difficult parameter to
estimate in the development of the model. The deck will have both pure and warping torsional stiffnesses;
714 J. C . WILSON AND W. GRAVELLE

however, by using a single spine model it is not possible to simulate completely this type of torsional
behaviour. As an approximation, the deck cross-section was considered to be a thin-walled open section
having a pure torsional constant

where bi = length of element i, ti = thickness of element i. The pure torsional constant of the deck, evaluated
by applying equation (l), was determined to be J = 1.0 ft4.
To evaluate warping stiffness, the deck was considered to be a C-section with vertical and transverse
moments of inertia as determined previously. The flanges of the C-section represent the edge girders, the web
represents the deck slab and the cross-section area was the total transformed area of the deck. Using these
quantities a warping constant r of the deck was calculated using the formula provided by Bleich’

r = d‘
4
{ I” + (
e2 A 1- F)}
where the variables are defined in Figure 6 and are d = distance between edge girders, I, = vertical second
moment of area of the deck (I,,), 4 = transverse second moment of area of the deck (Izz),A = transformed
cross-sectional area of the deck, e = distance between middle of the concrete slab and the vertical neutral
surface. Using this model the warping constant of the deck was calculated as r = 13600ft6. This value is in
very close agreement with the value found by a more detailed procedure presented by he in^.^
The torsional stiffness of the spine was determined by assuming the torsional mode shapes @ to be sine
functions, as applied to the differential equation for torsion4

where T = applied torsional moment, J = pure torsional constant of the deck, r = warping constant of the
deck. E = modulus of elasticity of steel, G = shear modulus of steel. To account for the effects of warping
stiffness in an appropriate way in a pure torsional model of the spine, equation (3) was rewritten in terms of
an equivalent pure torsional constant .Ies such that
T = GJ,,W (4)
where
GJ,,@’ = GJW - ETW” (5)

y2 e- 1.2’

I 2 I
L d143.5’

Figure 6. C-channel section used in determining torsion parameters for deck

 MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 715

Substituting into equation ( 5 ) the assumed torsional shape function

where B = amplitude, n = torsional mode number ( n = 1,2, . . .), x = distance along deck, L = length of
main span, produces

(7)

Jeq was calculated for each of the first three torsional modes and the average was used as the final Jeqfor the
model. The first three modes were selected because these were expected to be the dominant torsional modes
in the response of the bridge. This procedure made the model stiffer than the actual structure for the first
torsional mode but as the deck twists into shorter segments (higher torsional modes) this model becomes
more flexible than the actual deck. The equivalent pure torsional constant of the spine approximated in this
manner was Jeq= 3.13 ft4.

Translational mass
The mass of the deck included in the finite element model consisted of contributions from the concrete
deck surface, two parapets, five stringers and two edge girders. The total weight of the deck per unit length
was determined to be 7959 lb/ft.f This unit weight was used to compute the total weight for each deck segment
of the spine and was represented in the finite element model in Figure 5(b) as a pair of concentrated masses
lumped at the ends of the two rigid vertical links. The spine and rigid links were defined as having zero mass,
as their primary function was to provide stiffness. As an example of these calculations, a typical 60 ft segment
of the deck was modelled using two concentrated masses each having a weight of 238 770 Ib.
The length of the vertical rigid links was determined by first locating the neutral surface of the actual deck
cross-section for bending in the vertical direction at 14.4 in below the middle of the concrete slab (18.9 in
below the centreline of the roadway) as shown in Figure 6. The shear centre of the deck was located using a
C-section analogy'

z,=- e ( l + $ )
The variables are defined in equation (2) and Figure 6, and Z, = distance from centroid (point 0)to the
shear centre. Application of this equation yielded 2, = 40.8 in. This is within 3 per cent of the value obtained
from a more detailed calc~lation.~ The distance measured (downwards)in the z direction from the middle of
the concrete slab to the centre of mass of the deck cross-section was calculated to be - 6.0 in. Thus, the
length of the vertical rigid links was taken as the distance between the centre of mass and the shear centre, a
distance of 2.7 ft. In the finite element model the deck spine was placed at the shear centre. To retain correct
geometry in the model the spine was placed at the elevation of the centreline of the roadway. Thus, the
eccentrically placed masses are positioned below this level.

Rotational mass
The mass moments of inertia of the deck about each of the three principal directions, taking into
consideration the concrete slab, the five stringers, the two parapets and the two edge girders, were calculated
using the formula

'1 Ib/ft = 1.49 kg/m; 1 Ib = 0.454 kg.

716 J. C. WILSON AND W. GRAVELLE

where I,,,< = actual mass moment of inertia of deck segment between cable anchor points about the 5 axis
(where 5 is x, y or z ) , Ci= mass moment of inertia of the ith element about its own centroidal axis, m i= mass
of ith element, ri = distance from centre of mass of ith element to the centre of rotation of the deck. As an
example, this calculation was applied to the configuration of lumped masses (mi) in Figure 7 to determine the
actual mass moment of inertia of the deck about the x axis. In general, the simplified distribution of mass
used in Figure 5(b) to develop the shear centre characteristics of the finite element model will not also
correctly simulate the actual mass moments of inertia of the deck as calculated by equation (9). To correct for
this effect the values of I.lffor the actual deck are simulated in the spine model [Figure 5(b)] by the addition
or subtraction of a corrective mass moment of inertia term at the location of the spine, by applying the
equation
At = Imc - 2MrZ (10)
where At = corrective mass moment of inertia term applied to the finite element spine about the 5 axis,
M = lumped mass used in finite element model, r = distance from spine to lumped mass M, as shown in
Figure 5(b). The corrective mass moments of inertia, applied at each node of the spine are summarized (in
units of force) in the lower part of Table I. The two negative values indicate that the inherent mass moments
of inertia of the finite element model were greater than those of the actual bridge, and hence had to be
reduced.

17'-0 I SHEAR
CENTRE
-i

Figure 7. Distribution of lumped masses used in developing the model of the cross-section of the deck

Table I. Properties for finite element model of deck

Model parameters Numerical values

Section properties of spine:

Vertical (4,) 39.5 ft4
Transverse ( Izz) 2289 ft4
Torsion (JGq) 3.14 ft4
Cross-section area ( A ) 8.9 ft2
Translational weights:
Main span ( M ) 238 770 lb
Side span ( M ) 250 788 Ib
Corrections applied to
rotational inertia:
Main span Ax - 7.76 x lo7 lb . ft2
A, 1.66 x 10' lb.ft2
A, 5.49 x lo7 lb . ft2
Side span Ax - 8.15 x lo' lb.ft2

A, 1.89 x lo* lb.ft2

4 7.21 x lo7 Ib*ft2
 MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 717

Summary of deck properties

The physical properties of the deck of the Quincy Bayview Bridge, as calculated for use in the finite element
model for dynamic analysis, are summarized in Table I.

TOWERS
The towers were modelled using three-dimensional linear elastic beam elements based on gross cross-section
properties. Each tower required a total of 28 beam elements with nodes placed at section changes and at
cable anchor locations in the upper sections of the towers. The concrete material properties were the same as
those given earlier for the deck. Since the cross-sections of the towers have relatively simple geometry, a
detailed description of property formulation and calculations is not presented here. Table I1 and Figure 8
summarize the geometric model information for the towers. The quantities in Table I1 are reported on a per
element basis. For convenience the second moments of area are reported in the global x, y, z coordinate

Table 11. Properties for finite element model of

towers

Column Area
sections* (ft2)
I,,
(ft4) (b) J
(ft4)

1 192.5 15000' 19Wt 1587

2 94.4 410 1774 1145
3 16 395 1625 892

Struts Area I,, 2, J

lower 68.5 854 1550 1603
upper 78 954 1622 1736

* See Figure 8.
Includes allowance for stiffening web; see Figure 3.

4Ol-O

' 45'-6

Figure 8. Finite element model of towers

718 J. C. WILSON AND W. GRAVELLE

system although they are actually the second moments of area calculated for the principal coordinate axes of
each member. For the legs the principal axes are slightly rotated from the y and z global axes. The large value
of I,, for section 1 (tower section below the deck) is a result of the 4 ft thick stiffening wall between the tower
legs.

CABLES
The cables were modelled as linear elastic truss elements, having a stiffness that depends only on the modulus
of elasticity of the cable E,, cross-sectional area A,, and length L, (i.e. E,A,/L,). A single truss element was
used to model each of the 56 cables. A modulus of elasticity of E , = 30 x lo6 psi was used for the cables.
Cross-sectional area and weight per unit length for each cable were taken from the structural drawings and
are summarized in Table 111 and Figure 4(a).
The stiffness characteristics of an inclined cable can exhibit a non-linear behaviour caused by cable tension
and sag. This non-linear behaviour is often taken into account by linearization of the cable stiffness using an
equivalent modulus of elasticity that is less than the true material modulus. The use of an equivalent modulus
of elasticity for the cable system in this bridge was investigated following an approach outlined by Gimsing3
using parameters of dead load cable stress, cable mass, cable length and true modulus of elasticity. This
procedure produced an equivalent modulus that was essentially equal to the true modulus of the cables.
Thus, non-linear tension-sag effects in the cables were assumed to be negligible and the cables were treated as
having a completely linear force-deformation relationship described by the true material modulus of
elasticity.

DECK-TOWER BEARINGS
The connection of the deck to the towers presented a special challenge to the development of the finite
element model. Under quasistatic thermal and wind loads, the deck is free to move in a longitudinal direction
relative to the east tower. It is restrained by elastomeric bearings for transverse motions at both towers, and
by fixed bearings for longitudinal motions at the west tower. These motions are evident from a study of
Figure 4. For low-level (ambient) dynamic response, it was assumed that relative translational motions
between deck and tower would not occur (i.e. the deck was fixed to both tower cross-beams for motions in
the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions) and that the only relative motion possible was a free
rotation of the deck with respect to the tower cross-beam, about the y axis.
The deck-tower bearings were simulated using four bearing links (for geometric compatibility) as
illustrated in Figure 9. Two links were oriented vertically, connecting the deck to the lower strut, and two
horizontal links were used to connect the deck to the tower columns. The stiffnesses of these links were
selected to simulate the behaviour of the vertical and horizontal bearings so that the only relative motion
between the deck and the towers was a rotation about the transverse ( y ) axis.

Table 111. Properties for finite element model

of cables

Cable cross-
Cable section area Cable weight
number * (in2) (Wt)

1 13.9 609
2 10.5 52.7
3 8.32 48.5
4 5.4 35.6

* See Figure qa).

 MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 719

' LEGEND
NODE WITH MASS
L
0 NODE WITH ZERO MASS
DECK SPINE

-BEAM ELEMENT
-
-RIGID LINK
BEARING LINK

Figure 9. Modelling of bearings at deck-to-tower connection

PIERS AND ABUTMENTS

Boundary conditions at two locations on the bridge must be simulated in a finite element model; at the piers
at the base of the towers, and at the ends of the deck. The piers are founded on densely piled foundations,
driven to bedrock, and the tower bases were treated as being fixed in all degrees-of-freedom at the piers. The
east and west ends of the deck are connected to the piers by a tension-link mechanism [Figure qc)] that
permits the end of the deck to rotate freely about the vertical ( 2 ) and transverse ( y ) axes. Rotation about the
longitudinal axis (x) was fixed, as were all three translational degrees-of-freedom at each abutment. These
seemed to be reasonable boundary conditions to impose on the finite element model considering the
comparisons that were to be made between the model and the dynamic characteristics of the full-scale bridge
for low amplitude ambient vibrationi3 For situations involving large amplitudelarge force response, such
as during an earthquake, it may be appropriate to reconsider the realistic nature of these boundary
conditions as well as the permissible degrees-of-freedom of the deck-tower bearings. This comment is
directed in particular at the assumption of a fixed condition for x-translation at the ends of the deck. The
tension link mechanism shown in Figure 4(c) suggests that longitudinal motions of the deck relative to the
end piers could occur during an earthquake.

APPLICATION
The structural parameters evaluated in the preceding sections were used as input in the creation of a three-
dimensional finite element model of the Quincy Bayview Bridge. As is probably evident from the foregoing
discussions, an evaluation of structural properties for a bridge of this size and complexity is a time-
consuming task. Equally time-consuming is the preparation of coordinate data, node and element num-
bering, and material and property assignments. The final model required a total of 213 three-dimensional
beam elements, 56 one-dimensional truss elements and 213 nodes. The model had approximately loo0
degrees-of-freedom, and the bandwidth of the stiffness matrix was approximately 100. Extraction of 50
modes, covering the frequency range of 0.371 to 3.01 Hz, required 9 1/2 minutes on a VAX 8650 computer.
Figures l q a ) and 1qb) show two mode shapes computed using this model. Figure l q a ) shows the
fundamental mode of the bridge at a frequency of 0371 Hz (period of 2.695 sec) which is a symmetric vertical
motion of the deck with associated longitudinal motions of the upper parts of the towers. Figure 1qb) shows
the second computed mode at 0-577Hz (period of 1.733 sec) having simultaneous transverse and torsional
motions of the deck. This is termed a coupled transverse-torsion mode. These two modes are representative
of the two classes of modes computed by this model: (i) one involving vertical motions of the deck, (ii) the
second involving simultaneous transverse and torsional motions of the deck. Detailed results of dynamic
analyses using this model, and comparisons with results of a full-scale ambient vibration survey on the bridge
are presented in a companion paper.13
720 J. C. WILSON A N D W. GRAVELLE

Figure 10. Sample of two mode shapes of the complete bridge as calculated from the model: (a) first vertical bending mode at 0,371 Hz;
(b) first mode involving coupled transverse and torsional motions of the deck at 0577 Hz

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A detailed description has been provided of the development of a linear elastic finite element model for
dynamic analysis of a modern cable-stayed bridge. This description is targeted for, and should be of practical
value to, engineers investigating the dynamic, aerodynamic or seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. The
model has been developed from information available from the structural drawings of the bridge. The use of
this model for evaluation of modal frequencies and mode shapes, and comparisons with results of full-scale
vibration measurements on the Quincy Bayview Bridge, are presented in a companion paper.13
Although the model has been developed specifically for the Quincy Bayview Bridge, the basic principles
used in its formulation should be applicable, with some modifications, to other designs of cable-stayed
 MODELLING A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE 721

bridges. Areas of significant difference between this and other design configurations which would have an
impact on finite element modelling include the following.

1. Shape of the towers, including variations of the open tuning fork shape of the Quincy Bridge, diamond
or A-frame configuration, or single pylon, all of which have been used in other cable-stayed bridge
designs.
2. Configuration of the cables, including single or double planes, and their anchor locations on the towers
and deck. This can have a significant influence on the torsional response of the bridge.
3. Cross-sections of the deck including open composite sections similar to the Quincy Bridge and closed
multi-celled sections or box girders. The type of deck cross-section can also have a significant influence
on the torsional behaviour of the structure. This will be reflected in the formulation of the model by the
methods used to determine the torsional constant J for the deck, and in the evaluation of a suitable
three-dimensional distribution of mass and assignment of rotational moments of inertia on the deck.
These factors can each have a pronounced influence on the resulting dynamic characteristics of the
model.

Additionally, for some designs of cable-stayed bridges, it may be prudent to investigate the possibility of
non-linear behaviour of the structure to assess the stiffness to be used in the dynamic analysis calculations.
The necessity of this has been noted by other researchers. However, as discussed earlier in this paper and in
the companion paper,13 a completely linear model was found to work very well for the Quincy Bayview
Bridge. FOPcalculations involving large amplitude responses or strong-motion excitations, further considera-
tion must be given to modelling the degrees-of-freedom at the ends of the bridge and at the deck-tower
bearings which are likely to become activated during strong dynamic response.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their thanks to Floyd Jacobsen and his staff of the Illinois Department of
Transportation for their valuable assistance and cooperation at various stages of this research programme.
The comments provided by Tao Liu were of significant assistance in developing the finite element model.
Thanks are also extended to Bob Wardlaw of the National Research Council of Canada for his assistance in
the early stages of the project. The financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada is most appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. F. Bleich, Buckling Strength @Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1952.
2. J. F. Fleming and E. A. Egeseli, ‘Dynamic behaviour of a cable-stayed bridge’, Earthquake eng. struct. dyn. 8, 1-16 (1982).
3. N. J. Gimsing, Cable Supported Bridges, Concept and Design, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., 1983.
4. C. P. Heins, Bending and Torsional Design in Structural Members, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1975.
5. T.Liu, ‘Full-scale ambient vibration measurements on a cable-stayed bridge’, Master of Engineering Thesis, McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1989.
6. Modjeski and Masters, Structural Drawings of the Quincy Bayview Bridge, Modjeski and Masters Consulting Engineers,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1983.
7. A. S. Nanny and A. M. Abdel-Ghaffar, ‘Seismic response analysis of cable-stayed bridges subjected to uniform and multiple-support
excitations’, Report No. 87-SM-I, Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University, 1987.
8. A. S. Nanny and A. M. Abdel-Ghaffar, “on-linear earthquake response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: Theory’,
Earthquake eng. struct. dyn. 19,4542 (1990).
9. A. S. Nanny and A. M. Abdel-Ghaffar, “on-linear earthquake response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: Applications’,
Earthquake eng. struct. dyn. 19, 63-76 (1990).
10. R. H. Scanlan, ‘Interpreting aeroelastic models of cable-stayed bridges’, J. eng. mech. ASCE 113, 555-575 (1986).
11. R. H. Scanlan, ‘Aspects of wind and earthquake dynamics of cable-stayed bridges’, Proc. struct. congress 87’, Orlando, Florida, Vol.
on Bridges and Transmission Line Structures, ASCE, 329-340 (1987).
12. R. H. Scanlan and N. P.Jones, ‘Aeroelastic analysis of cable-stayed bridges’, J . struct. eng, ASCE 116, 279-297 (1990).
13. J. C. Wilson and T. Liu, ‘Ambient vibration measurements on a cable-stayed bridge’, Earthquake eng. struct. dyn., ZO,723-747 (1991).
14. K. Yamada, N. Yamamoto and H. Akiyama, ‘Full-scale dynamic test of long span bridges’, Proc. 4th US.-Japan workshop on bridge
eng. San Diego, California (1988).