IABMAS2010, The Fifth International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, July 11-15, 2010, Philadelphia, USA

Cable-loss analyses and collapse behavior of cable-stayed bridges

M. Wolff
Grassl Engineering Consultans, Hamburg, Germany

U. Starossek
Structural Analysis and Steel Structures Institute, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg, Germany

ABSTRACT: The general aim in designing structures, where the consequences of a collapse are high, must be
collapse resistance. This means that no structural damage should develop that is disproportionate to the
triggering event. Generally, structures can be made collapse resistant by ensuring a high level of safety
against local failure or by designing for the failure of elements and thus increasing the robustness. Increasing
the robustness of cable-stayed bridges is achieved by means of designing for the loss of cables. For this,
quasi-static analyses using a dynamic amplification factor are recommended by guidelines. This paper shows
the possibilities and limits of such an approach for cable-stayed bridges. Furthermore, collapse analyses of a
cable-stayed bridge are conducted. With this, structural properties are identified which are responsible for
collapse propagation. The prevailing collapse type is described and recommendations for the design of robust
cable-stayed bridges are given.
1 INTRODUCTION
The failure of one structural element can lead to the
failure of further structural elements and thus to the
collapse of large structural sections or the entire
structure. In many cases, the initial triggering event
and the resulting damage are disproportionate. Such
collapses have frequently been discussed and
investigated in recent years and are generally
summarized under the term progressive collapse.
But work in this field refers mainly to buildings.
Collapse resistance means insensitivity to
accidental circumstances. This can be achieved by
ensuring a high level of safety against local failure
or by using a design which allows for local failure.
The structure's property of being insensitive to local
failure is termed robustness (Starossek 2009). For
cable-stayed bridges, collapse resistance is primarily
achieved by increasing the robustness. The loss of
cables must be considered as a possible local failure
since the cross sections of cables have usually a low
resistance against accidental lateral loads stemming
from vehicle impact or malicious actions. The loss
of cables can lead to overloading and rupture of
adjacent cables. A collapse progressing in such a
way is called a zipper-type collapse (Starossek
2007). Because the bridge girder is in compression,
the loss of cables, which leads to a reduction of
bracing, increases the risk of buckling. To create
robust structures, it is necessary to know the collapse
behavior of a structure. With this knowledge,

structural properties can be identified which are

responsible for collapse propagation.
This paper examines the dynamic response of a
cable-stayed bridge to the loss of one or more
cables. Such analyses require a great amount of
expertise and modeling effort. When designing for
the loss of a cable, only the maximum responses are
of interest. Therefore, quasi-static analyses using
dynamic amplification factors to account for the
dynamic effects can be conducted instead
(PTI 2007). In the first part of this paper, dynamic
amplification factors are determined, information is
given on how to determine these factors and the
limits of the quasi-static approach for cable-stayed
bridges are outlined. In the second part of this paper,
the collapse behavior of a cable-stayed bridge after
the loss of cables is analyses. To trace the collapse
progression following the rupture of one or more
cables, geometric and material nonlinear dynamic
analyses in the time domain are conducted. Hereby,
critical elements are identified and the prevailing
collapse type is described. Finally, recommendations
for the design of robust cable-stayed bridges are
given.
2 INVESTIGATED BRIDGE SYSTEM AND ITS
MODELING
The cable-stayed bridge being considered and which
was the basis for a number of parameter variations is

shown in Figure 1. Two cable planes are placed in a

modified fan arrangement with 80 cables in each
vertical plane and a cable spacing of 15 m at deck
level, apart from the closely spaced outermost backstay cables. The pylons consist of reinforced
concrete. The bridge girder consists of a 21.60 m
wide orthotropic steel deck, two 2.6 m deep
longitudinal steel girders and cross girders spaced at
3.75 m apart. In the longitudinal direction, the bridge
girder is only restrained by the cables.
The numeric investigation is conducted using a
three-dimensional model of the bridge. The pylon
and bridge girder (longitudinal and cross girders) are
modeled with beam elements. For investigations
with nonlinear material behavior, a combination of
shell and beam elements are used for the deck. The
cables are modeled with a series of truss elements
with distributed mass and self weight. The influence
of cable sag and transverse cable vibration on the
dynamic response could therefore be investigated. It
shows that for the loss of one cable, this detailed
modeling of cables leads to smaller dynamic
responses (Wolff & Starossek 2009).
The loss of a cable is investigated by nonlinear
dynamic analyses in the time domain, taking into
account large deformations. Firstly, the static initial
state of the structure with the considered static load
cases is calculated. The cable to be considered for
failure is eliminated from the structural model and
the corresponding cable forces are applied to the
anchorage nodes of that cable as static loads. The
time-history analysis is begun on this modified and
loaded system at rest. To model the sudden loss of
the cable, a step loading of the same size as the static
cable force but acting in opposite directions is
applied to both anchorage nodes. The numeric
calculations are done using the finite element
analysis program ANSYS.
3 DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS
In the design, only the maximum dynamic responses
to cable loss are of interest. Therefore, guidelines
suggest a quasi-static approach which accounts for
the dynamic effects by a dynamic amplification
factor (DAF). For single-degree-of-freedom

Figure 1. Structural system.

systems, this factor is 2.0.

According to the PTI Recommendations (2007), a
force which is the cable force multiplied by this
factor of 2.0 acting in the opposite direction must be
applied to calculate the maximum responses due to
cable loss. The EC 3 (2006) stipulates that the
bending moments and forces due to static removal of
a cable be multiplied by a factor of 1.5. This smaller
value might consider the fact that a sudden failure of
a whole cable this causes a higher response than a
gradual reduction is unlikely. But the failure of a
cable anchorage at the Cycle Arc bridge in Glasgow,
the rupture of the main cable of a cable car in
Cavalese due to a jet plane impact or the rupture of a
cable at the Rion-Antirion Bridge due to a lightning
strike tell a different story.
The PTI Recommendations additionally allow the
determination of a dynamic amplification factor in a
nonlinear dynamic analysis, because it is assumed
that, in general, smaller factors can be chosen for
cable stayed-bridges. But how this factor is to be
determined or which assumptions are to be made are
not described.
Investigations as to realistic ranges of dynamic
amplification factors are rare. Single values are
calculated for an arch bridge in Zoli & Woodward
(2005), in a simplified manner in Hyttinen et al.
(1994), and in Park et al. (2007).
In the following, dynamic amplification factors
are calculated separately for all state variables in all
structural elements of the described bridge. The aim
is to give advice on how to determine this factor, to
prove if the use of a uniform amplification factor is
valid and if reductions are generally possible.
The method by which the DAF is determined is
described in (Wolff & Starossek 2008). It was
concluded that a unique dynamic amplification
factor cannot be specified. Instead, the value is
dependent on the location of the ruptured cable as
well as the type and location of the state variable
being considered. Very different dynamic
amplification factors result if the rupture of one
cable is considered (Wolff & Starossek 2009).
Amplification factors at locations further away from
the ruptured cable are high. At these locations, static
responses are small. While the static removal of a
cable mainly causes local deflections and bending

moments, the sudden removal of a cable excites

natural modes with deflections and moments over
the whole girder length. Thus, the mainly excited
natural modes are not affine to the static deflection
curve.
The dynamic responses at locations further away
from the ruptured cable are, however, irrelevant
when considering all cable loss load cases, because
only responses in the vicinity of the ruptured cable
are design governing. Concerning the positive
vertical deflections, a dynamic amplification factor
of between 1.5 and 1.8 results at these locations. The
amplification factor for the positive bending
moments in proximity to the ruptured cable lies
between 1.3 and 1.6, while that for the negative
bending moments between 1.4 and 2.7. In Figure 2,
the envelopes of extreme bending moments from all
load cases are shown, together with the
corresponding amplification factors.
The reason for amplification factors smaller than
2.0 is that the maxima of all superposed eigenmodes
do not occur at the same time in the considered time
period. Figure 3 shows the contribution of the first
300 eigenmodes in time-history to the total bending
moment at the location of a ruptured cable. For the
sake of clarity, the contributions are not sketched
individually but grouped. The sum of the maxima of
these groups (encircled) is My = 18.3 MN which is
higher than the maximum of the total response in
this time range. The theoretical maximum develops
at t = 300 s provided no damping is present.
The dynamic amplification factor for the design
governing dynamic axial forces in the bridge girder
can be high (Wolff & Starossek 2009). But the
increase in the girders total stresses due to the
normal forces resulting from cable loss is small
compared to the increase due to bending moments:

For the investigated bridge, the value is 2 %.

The dynamic amplification factors for the design
relevant cable forces which develop in the cables
adjacent to the lost cable are between 1.35 and 2.0,
depending on the lost cable being considered.
Special attention is necessary for the bending
moments in the pylons. The dynamic amplification
factor for the bending moments over the whole
pylon height and for all cable losses is significantly
higher than 2.0. At the pylon base, values of about
30 for negative and about 8 for positive moments
occur. The static moments are small. However, the
dynamic bending moments in the pylon are
significant (Fig. 4). Here too, higher modes which
are not affine to the static deflection curve are
excited. Furthermore, the pylon is not only excited
by the step loading of the failing cable, but each of
the cables induces irregular forces which are
composed of the redistributed loads from the failed
cable plus the inertia forces from the vibrating
bridge deck. (The anchorage points are evenly
distributed over a length of 26 m at the pylon head.)
These forces cause a complex structural response
which cannot be simplified as described above.
The results show that in the present case, dynamic
amplification factors smaller than 2.0 are only
possible for the bending moments in the bridge
girder, since over wide parts, the values are smaller.
Here, an explicit calculation of the DAF can be
beneficial. For the safe design of the cables, a
dynamic amplification factor of 2.0 is necessary. For
the bending moments in the pylons, high dynamic
forces occur which cannot be safely accounted for
by a quasi-static analysis using amplification factors.
In particular, when the static removal causes a
decrease in responses while the dynamic removal
causes an increase, quasi-static analyses cannot yield

Figure 2. a) Dynamic amplification factor (DAF) for positive () and negative () bending moments; (b) extreme bending
moments in longitudinal girder in the plane of cable rupture due to permanent loads and cable losses (envelope)

Figure 3. Contribution of first 300 eigenmodes in time-history to total bending moment at the location of a ruptured cable
(= maximum bending moment)
Figure 4. Extreme bending moments in one pylon leg due to

amplification is nearly independent of the type of

calculation. Therefore, it is also independent of the
type of additional loading. Thus, different live load
positions need not be considered.
In (Wolff & Starossek 2008), the influence of
damping on the structural response after cable loss is
described. The effect of damping depends on the
occurrence of the maximum responses in timehistory. As stated before, the theoretical maximum
responses occur very late in time history when even
a very small damping has stopped any vibration. The
considered time-range for calculating the dynamic
amplification factor was chosen in such a way that
damping reduces the amplitudes by at least 25 % by
the end of this time range. Design relevant
maximum deflections and bending moments of the
bridge girder and maximum cable forces develop
early in this time range. Therefore, a damping has
only a small effect on these maximum responses and
the impact on reducing the dynamic amplification
factor is small. The bending moments in the pylons,
however, are significantly reduced, even by a small
damping ratio of = 0.2 %. However, the dynamic
amplification factors are still much higher than 2.0.
4 IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL ELEMENTS

permanent loads and cable losses (envelope)

correct results. Dynamic analyses seem vital here.

The results presented in this paragraph are for the
undamped system under self-weight without live
loads. The dynamic amplification factors are
determined in nonlinear analyses. However, it turns
out that even if nonlinearities cannot be neglected in
calculating the maximum responses, the dynamic

The effort of determining maximum responses due

to cable loss can be reduced by minimizing the
number of investigated cable-loss load cases. This is
possible if the important elements of the structure
are known, which are defined as those elements
whose failure cause the highest responses.
For the investigated bridge, the increase in cable
stresses is highest when a short cable fails. The
design governing stresses in the bridge girder are

due to the loss of a long cable near the center of the

bridge. These results might be applicable to other
cable-stayed bridges with closely spaced cables
because the reason for this is the bridge girders
elastic support by the cables: in the range of short
cables, the support is stiffer because of the larger
inclination and stiffer force-deformation behavior of
short stay-cables. Thus, the loads are transferred to
few cables. The soft support in the range of long
cables causes a load distribution to more cables but
at the expense of higher bending moments in the
bridge girder. Details are given in (Wolff 2010)
For the maximum bending moments in the
pylons, the loss of long cables has to be analyzed,
because the induced horizontal forces are highest.
But this cannot be generalized, because resonance
effects also play a role.
In addition to the important elements, critical
elements are defined which are elements whose
failure leads to a disproportionate damage. Thus,
they are dependent on the definition of the term
disproportionate. Furthermore, the additional
loading is important. Depending on their location in
the structure, the number or size of critical elements
can be different. For the investigated bridge, the loss
of three adjacent short cables is critical, as explained
in Section 5.
5 COLLAPSE BEHAVIOR
To trace the collapse progression after an initial
failure of one or more cables, geometrically and
materially nonlinear dynamic analyses are
necessary.
The material behavior of the bridge girder and the
cables is assumed to be elasto-plastic. In the collapse
state, cable stresses can be significantly higher than
in the initial state but also a slacking is possible. For
these high stress variations, the cables forcedeformation behavior is highly nonlinear. Taking
into account cable sag and transverse cable vibration
therefore becomes crucial. To account for the exact
stress distribution in the bridge girder, a combination
of shell and beam elements is used. The element size
is adapted according to the strain gradients.
For the investigated bridge, the failure of one
single cable does not lead to collapse progression.
(Unfactored live loads are placed in the most
unfavorable position.) Only local plastifications
develop and deflections are not significant. Also, the
cable tensions remain comparatively small. Live
loads can be increased by a factor of three until
ultimate state is reached.
The minimum number of cables which have to
fail for total collapse of the bridge are three adjacent
short cables. In Figure 5, the initial state with the
intact critical cables is depicted. After the sudden
loss of these cables, vertical deformations with

plastic regions first begin to develop in the

longitudinal girder of the damaged cable plane (in
the front part of the figure). Thereby, the normal
forces acting on the whole section of the bridge
girder are transferred to the longitudinal girder of the
intact cable plane (at the rear of the figure) where
vertical deflections are small. Although this girder is
continuously supported by the cables, it cannot resist
these high normal forces and begins to buckle in the
vertical direction. From this moment on, vertical
deflections grow strongly and cannot be arrested
since the bridge deck is not restrained by fix
supports in the longitudinal direction. Ultimate
stresses in the bridge girder are exceeded. During
this process, the upward deflections and the missing
restraint in the longitudinal direction cause a
slacking of some cables which can lead to them
disengaging from their anchors. The downward
deflection of the longitudinal girder of the intact
cable plane finally causes the rupture of the cable at
this location. This state of the bridge deck is shown
in Figure 6. The collapse state is sketched in Figure
7: due to the longitudinal motion of the bridge deck
towards the damaged region, normal forces are
transferred to the other, intact half of the bridge with
the second pylon (not shown in the figures). This
leads to high unbalanced cable forces in both bridge
parts which in turn results in high bending moments
in both pylons. The continuity of the bridge girder
thus causes the failure of both pylons which
ultimately leads to the total collapse of the bridge.
The collapse can only be arrested by providing an
alternate load path for the normal forces in the
bridge girder. Therefore, an alternative system was
investigated where the bridge deck was horizontally
fixed at the ends of the bridge or alternatively at the
pylons. But the results show that high forces of
40 MN develop indicating that horizontal bearings
are not a good measure for increasing the robustness.

Figure 5: Von Mises stresses in the bridge girder due to

permanent and live loads prior to loss of cables (one half of the
bridge)

Figure 6: Von Mises stresses in the bridge girder at collapse state due to loss of three cables, permanent and live loads
(for a better illustration, the pylon is omitted), -- slack cables, ruptured cable

Figure 7: Final collapse state for the failure of critical elements, scheme

max w = 3220 cm

Figure 8: Deformed state after the loss of 10 long cables (von Mises stresses)

The structure is more robust regarding the loss of

long cables. This is due to the fact that at the
anchorage points of the longer cables, the bridge
girder exhibits smaller normal forces and therefore
the increase in bending moments due to second
order effects is small. Furthermore, the support of
the bridge girder at the bridge center is softer than at
the pylons. Thus, the forces from the failing cables
are distributed to more cables. Figure 8 shows the
deformed state after the loss of five cables in each
cable plane. The bridge will finally collapse due to
high bending moments in both pylons, since
additionally to the high vertical deformations, high
horizontal deflections towards the bridge center
occur.
6 COLLAPSE TYPES
According to Starossek (2007), six types of
structural collapse can be distinguished: five pure
collapse types and one mixed-type collapse. Each
collapse type can be characterized by a propagating
action which, after the failure of one element, leads
to the failure of the next element. The study of
propagating actions can give insights into the
structural properties which promote collapse
propagation.
The collapse propagation for the failure of the
critical elements, described above, does exhibit
features of at least two of the pure collapse types and
must therefore be categorized as mixed-type
collapse. At the beginning, there is the initial failure
of elements which are responsible although not
primarily - for the stabilization of the bridge girder
in compression. Lack of bracing then leads to an
increase in vertical deflections and high stresses due
to second order effects, firstly in the longitudinal
girder of the affected cable plane and then in the
second longitudinal girder (a more detailed analysis
is given in Wolff (2010)). These are features of the
instability-type collapse although the failure is not a
pure buckling. The compression force is thus
responsible for the onset of collapse propagation and
the failure of the bridge deck.
After the failure of the bridge deck, the normal
forces in the bridge deck, resulting from the
horizontal cable forces, are redirected to the intact
bridge part utilizing the decks tension resistance
(Figure 7). The forces are transferred to the pylons
by the main spans cables (Figure 7). The pylons are
pulled towards the main span of the bridge and fail
in bending. This process exhibits features of the
domino-type collapse: the horizontal forces cause an
overturning and thus failure of these two individual
structures with mainly vertical load bearing capacity.
They would not develop if the bridge deck was made
of concrete or is not continuous.

A rupture of adjacent cables as a direct

consequence of the initial failing cables which is
the main example for the zipper-type collapse and is
often connected to the collapse of cable-stayed
bridges does not occur.
7 ROBUSTNESS
From the observations made regarding the collapse
analysis, conclusions can be drawn as to the
robustness of the investigated cable-stayed bridge,
which has a slenderness ratio of 1/230 and a cable
spacing of 15 m. In general, robustness can be
defined as insensitivity to local failure (Starossek
2009). Robustness is therefore always related to the
size of the initial failure and to the accepted amount
of damage to the remaining structure. Both items
have to be quantified as design aims (Starossek &
Wolff 2006). Recommendations for cable-stayed
bridges require the analysis for the failure of one
single cable; other authors propose the failure of
cables within a 10 m range (Starossek 2009).
If the design aim is that no or only small
plastifications are allowed, the investigated bridge
acts only robust to the loss of one cable. Here,
alternate paths can develop. Loads are transferred
through the bridge girder to adjacent cables. Only
local plastifications develop in the bridge girder and
the cables remain elastic. If only total collapse
should be avoided, the bridge can be termed robust
regarding the loss of two adjacent cables plus one
adjacent cable in the second cable plane. The failure
of more cables is not possible without serious
damage or total collapse. The bridges robustness is
therefore limited to the failure of one to three cables
depending on the predefined design criteria.
Although the quantitative description of
robustness will be different, the qualitative
description will be analogous to similar cable-stayed
bridges. The reason for the relatively robust
behavior of the bridge lies in some general features
of cable-stayed bridges with close cable spacing.
The bridge decks elastic support by the cables
allows a load distribution to many cables. Together
with the low stresses in the serviceability state and a
high deformation capacity due to their length, a
failure of cables due to overloading is not very
likely.
For the investigated bridge, the bridge girder is
the critical structural element. Its resistance against
instability is crucial for the robustness of the
structure in case of the loss of short cables. The
resistance can either be increased by increasing the
stiffness or by reducing the unsupported length,
which means closer cable spacing. In the whole
context of avoiding disproportionate collapse, the
former alternative should be chosen: if the cables are
placed close together, the probability that more

cables fail due to the same event is higher (Shankar

Nair 2006) and the consequence to the girder
remains the same. Additionally to a high crosssectional stiffness, the resistance to lateral buckling
of the longitudinal girders should be high. Here,
close cross girders with the same height as the
longitudinal girders are useful.
In case of the loss of long cables, the bridge
decks deformation capacity is important. Thus, a
steel deck is preferable. Another advantage of a steel
deck is that tension forces can be transferred to the
intact bridge part. Although the loss of the critical
elements leads to the progression of collapse to the
intact bridge half, it increases the robustness for the
loss of long cables.

normal force in the bridge deck is highest. For the

investigated cable-stayed bridge, two adjacent short
cables in one cable plane plus one cable in the
second cable plane can fail without disproportionate
collapse. In case of the failure of three adjacent
cables, the bridge collapses due to instability failure
of the bridge deck. The robustness of the bridge can
be increased by preventing instability. This is
possible by increasing the stiffness of the bridge
girder or by reducing the unsupported length, which
means closer cable spacing. The former is
recommended here due to a higher failure
probability of closely spaced cables.

8 CONCLUSION

This research was funded by the Deutsche

Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (German Research
Foundation) which is gratefully acknowledged.

This paper investigates the loss of any one cable

by nonlinear dynamic analysis of a threedimensional model of a cable-stayed bridge. Dynamic amplification factors for quasi-static analyses
are determined. The aim of these analyses is to give
advice on how to determine this dynamic
amplification factor, to prove if the use of a uniform
amplification factor to calculate the maximum
responses to cable loss is valid and if reductions of
this factor are generally possible.
The results show that a unique dynamic
amplification factor cannot be specified. Instead, the
dynamic amplification factor depends on the
location of the ruptured cable and on the type and
location of the state variable being examined. Using
a factor smaller than 2.0 is only possible for the
bending moments in the bridge girder. Here, an
explicit calculation of the DAF can be beneficial. A
dynamic amplification factor of 2.0 is necessary for
the safe design of the cables. Regarding the bending
moments in the pylons, large dynamic amplification
factors result because of large dynamic responses
resulting from a complex excitation. Dynamic timehistory analyses are therefore recommended, at least
for the cable loss cases which yield the highest
responses. These are generally the longer cables but
not necessarily the longest cable.
The dynamic amplification factor can be
determined in linear dynamic analyses. Different
live load positions do not have to be considered.
Additionally to having appropriate analysis tools
for creating robust structures, it is important to know
which structural properties are important to increase
structural robustness. These properties are identified
by investigating the collapse behavior of a cablestayed bridge after the loss of cables. The results
show that the normal forces in the bridge girder is
the collapse promoting attribute of a cable-stayed
bridge. For this reason, self-anchored cable-stayed
react less robust to the loss of short cables where the

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES
Eurocode 3. 2006. Design of steel structures, Design of
structures with tension components. EN 1993-1-11, 2006
Fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete) 2005.
Acceptance of stay cable systems using prestressing steels.
Lausanne: fib.
Hyttinen, E. & Vlimki, J. & Jrvenp, E. 1994. Cablestayed bridges effect, of breaking of a cable. In Cablestayed and suspension bridges, Proceedings AFPC
Conference, October 12-15, 1994.
Park, Y.S., Starossek, U., Koh, H.M., Choo, J.F., Kim, H.K. &
Lee, S.W. 2007. Effect of cable loss in cable stayed
bridgesFocus on dynamic amplification. Improving
infrastructure worldwide; Report IABSE symposium,
Weimar, Germany, 19-21 September 2007. Zurich: IABSE.
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) 2007. Recommendations for
stay cable design, testing and installation. 5th edition,
Cable-Stayed Bridges Committee. Phoenix: PTI.
Shankar Nair, R. 2006. Preventing Dispoportionate Collapse.
Jounal of Performance of Cnstructed Facilities, 20(4), 309314, November 2006.
Starossek U. 2007. Typology of progressive collapse.
Engineering Structures, 29(9), 2302-2307, September 2007.
www.starossek.de.
Starossek, U. (2009). Progressive Collapse of Structures.
Thomas Telford Publishing, London, July 2009.
www.starossek.de
Wolff, M. & Starossek, U. 2008. Robustness assessment of a
cable-stayed bridge. Proceedings, 4th International
Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and
Management (IABMAS08), Seoul, Korea, July 13-17,
2008.
Wolff, M. & Starossek, U. 2009. Cable loss and progressive
collapse in cable-stayed bridges. Bridge Structures, 5:1,
17 28, March 2009
Wolff, M. 2010. Seilausfall bei Schrgseilbrcken und
progressiver Kollaps (Cable loss in cable-stayed bridges
and progressive collapse). Phd-Thesis, Structural Analysis
and Steel Struct. Inst.. Hamburg University of Technology.
Zoli, T. & Woodward, R. 2005. Design of long span bridges
for cable loss. Structures and Extreme Events Report IABSE
Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, September, Zurich: IABSE