CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES Theory and Design SECOND EDITION M.S. Troitsky, DSc Professor of Engineering Concordia University, Montreal BSP PROFESSIONAL BOOKS OXFORD LONDON EDINBURGH BOSTON PALO ALTO MELBOURNECopyright © M. S. Troitsky 1977, 1988 Al rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the copyright owner. BSP Professional Books AA division of Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd Editorial offices: Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 OEL. (Orders: Tel. 0865 240201) 8 John Street, London WCIN 2ES 25 Ainstie Place, Edinburgh E13 6A] 52 Beacon Street, Boston Massachusetts 02108, USA 667 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto California 94301, USA. 107 Barry Street, Carlton Victoria 3053, Australia First Edition published by Crosby Lockwood Staples in 1977 Second Edition published by BSP Professional Books 1988, Set by Cambrian Typesetters Printed and bound in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frome and London British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Troitsky, M.S. Cable-stayed bridges: theory and design. — 2nd ed 1. Bridges, Cable-stayed—Design and construction L Title 624.55 TG40S ISBN 0-632-02041-5 Acknowledgements Special acknowledgement is herewith made to the following persons, companies, institutions and organizations for supplying the information and photographs for the many_ bridges discussed in this book: Alaska Department of Highways, USA; British Railways Southern Region; Compagnie Francaise D'Entreprises Metalliques, France; Compagnie Baudin- Chateauneuf, France; Dipl. Eng. E. Beyer, Landeshaupstadt Diisseldorf, Germany; Depart ment of Public Works, Hobart, Tasmania; Mr A. F, Gee, Mott, Hay and Anderson, Consulting Engineers, England; Dr O. A. Kerensky, Freeman, Fox and Partners, Consulting Engineers, England; Dipl. Ing. H. Thul, Germany; The Institution of Engineers, Australia; Mr A. Zanden, Rijkswaterstaat Directie Bruggen, Holland; Mr J. Virola, Consulting Engineer, Finland; Ing J.J.M. Veraart, Holland; Quebec Iron and Titanium Corporation; Mr Arvid Grant and ‘Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, USA; Modjeski and Masters, Consulting Engineers, USA; Dr P.R. ‘Taylor, Buckland and Taylor Ltd, Civil and Structural Engineers, Canada, Tam especially grateful to the American Society of Civil Engineers for permitting me to use excerpts of the paper ‘Tentative Recommendations for Cable-stayed Bridge Structures’,Contents Preface to the second edition Chapter 1 ‘The Cable-stayed Bridge System Introduction Historical review Basic concepts Arrangement of the stay cables. Positions of the cables in space ‘Tower types Deck types Main girder and trusses Structural advantages Comparison of cable-stayed and suspension bridges Economics Bridge architecture References Chapter 2. Typical Steel Bridges 21 2.2 23 24 25 2.6 27 Two-plane bridges One-plane bridges Inclined tower bridges Railroad bridges Combined railroad-highway bridges Pipeline bridges Pontoon bridges References Viiiv CONTENTS Chapter 3. Typical Concrete Bridges 3.1 Concrete cable-stayed bridges 3.2 Railroad concrete bridges 3.3 Pipeline concrete bridges References Chapter 4 Typical Composite Bridges 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Composite cable-stayed bridges References Chapter 5 Typical Pedestrian Bridges 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Cable-stayed pedestrian bridges References Chapter 6 Structural Details 6.1 Stiffening girders and trusses 6.2 Towers 6.3 Typesofcable 6.4 Modulus of elasticity of the cable 6.5 Permissible strength of the cables 6.6 Fatigue tests and strength of the cables 6.7 Corrosion protection 6.8 Behavior of the bent cable 6.9 Cable supports on the towers 6.10 Anchoring of the cables at the deck 6.11 Stiffening girder anchorages 6.12 Erection methods 6.13 Adjustment of the cables References Chapter 7 Methods of Structural Analysis 7.1 Introduction 7.2. Linear analysis and preliminary design 7.3 Nonlinearanalysis 7.4 Dynamic analysis 7.5 Application of computers References 147 148 154 175 221 223 223 224 227 229 230.CONTENTS v Chapter 8 Approximate Structural Analysis Participation of the stiffening girder in the bridge system 231 Optimum inclination of the cables 233 ‘The height of the tower and length of the panels 236 ‘The relation between the flanking and central spans 237 Number and spacing of the cables 238 Muttispan bridges 240 Multiple cantilever spans 240 Inclined cable under its own weight 241 Bridge systems 245 The degree of redundancy 247 Performance of the cable system 247 Linear analysis and preliminary design 251 Approximate weight of the bridge system 261 Approximate methods of analysis 265 Nonlinear analysis 269 References 272 Chapter 9 Exact Methods of Structural Analysis 9.1 Methods of analysis 273 9.2 The flexibility method 274 9.3. Force-displacement method 282 9.4 Reduction method 297 9.5 Simulation method 309 9.6 Stiffness method 317 9,7 Finite elementmethod 323 9.8 Torsion of the bridge system 328 9.9. Analysis of towers 345 References 361 Chapter 10 Model Analysis and Design 10.1 Introduction 364 10.2. Basic concepts 365 10.3. Planning 366 10.4 Static similitude conditions 370 10.5. Sectional properties and geometry of the model 374 10.6 Design of the model 375 10.7 Determination of influence lines 376 10.8 Nonlinear behavior 392 10.9 Post-tensioning forces in cables 397 References 401vi CONTENTS Chapter 11 Wind Action and Aerodynamic Stability Introduction Wind forces Static wind action Dynamic wind action Vibrations Vertical flexural vibrations Torsional vibrations Damping Wind tunnel model tests Prevention of aerodynamic instability Conclusions References Chapter 12 Abbreviated Tentative Recommendations 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 for Design of Cable-stayed Bridges Introduction Loads and forces Design assumptions Pylons Analysis Cables Saddles and end fittings Protection Camber ‘Temperature Aerodynamics Fatigue Fabrication Erection Inspection References Author Index Subject Index 404 407 408 410 413 416 421 428 435 440 446 457 458 459 460, 463Preface to the second edition Since the first edition of this book was published a decade ago, there has been considerable development in the state of the art of cable-stayed bridges. In this second edition, the contents have been revised to reflect recent developments in research, analysis, design and construction of new structures. Although much of the data of the first edition has been retained, the arrangement of material has changed, chapters have been expanded and new ones have been added. For the convenience of the users, the following changes and additions were made in the contents of the second edition. The first edition contained seven chapters, while the second edition consists of twelve chapters, as follows: Chapter 1, The Cable-stayed Bridge System has an additional discussion on the problems of economics and aesthetics. Chapter 2, Typical Steel Bridges contains additional data on new steel single and two-plane bridges, as well as pipeline and pontoon bridges. Chapter 3, Typical Concrete Bridges contains additional data on new concrete structures. Chapter 4, Typical Composite Bridges describes new deck types of cable- stayed bridges. Chapter 5, Typical Pedestrian Bridges presents additional types of pedes- trian bridges. Chapter 6, Structural Details provides additional structural details. Chapter 7, Methods of Structural Analysis presents a discussion on the structural behavior of bridges and methods of analysis Chapter 8, Approximate Structural Analysis treats methods of preliminary analysis. Chapter 9, Exact Methods of Structural Analysis presents additional methods. Chapter 10, Model Analysis and Design discusses experimental methods of design. Chapter 11, Wind Action and Aerodynamic Stability provides expanded treatment considering aerodynamic action. Chapter 12, Abbreviated Tentative Recommendations for Design of Cable- stayed Bridges is a new addition. Every effort was made to correct some errors detected in the first edition.To my wife TaniaChapter 1 The Cable-stayed Bridge System 1.1 Introduction During the past decade cable-stayed bridges have found wide applica- tion, especially in Western Europe, and toa lesser extent in other parts of the world. ‘The renewal of the cable-stayed system in modern bridge engineering was due to the tendency of bridge engineers in Europe, primarily Ger- many, to obtain optimum structural performance from material which was in short supply during the post-war years. Cable-stayed bridges are constructed along a structural system which comprises an orthotropic deck and continuous girders which are suppor- ted by stays, i.e. inclined cables passing over or attached to towers located at the main piers. ‘The idea of using cables to support bridge spans is by no means new, and a number of examples of this type of construction were recorded a long time ago. Unfortunately, the system in general met with little suc- cess, due to the fact that the statics were not fully understood and that unsuitable materials such as bars and chains were used to form the in- clined supports or stays. Stays made in this manner could not be fully tensioned and ina slack condition allowed large deformations of the deck before they could participate in taking the tensile loads for which they were intended. Wide and successful application of cable-stayed systems was realized only recently, with the introduction of high-strength steels, orthotropic type decks, development of welding techniques and progress in struc- tural analysis. The development and application of electronic computers opened up new and practically unlimited possibilities for the exact solu- tion of these highly statically indeterminate systems and for precise statical analysis of their three-dimensional performance. Existing cable-stayed bridges provide useful data regarding design,2 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES fabrication, erection and maintenance of the new system. With the con- struction of these bridges many basic problems encountered in their engineering are shown to have been successfully solved. However, these important data have apparently never before been systematically presen- ted. In summary, the following factors helped make the successful develop- ment of cabie-stayed bridges possible: (1) The development of methods of structural analysis of highly static- ally indeterminate structures and application of electronic computers, (2) The development of orthotropic steel decks. (3) Experience with previously built bridges containing basic elements of cable-stayed bridges. (4) Application of high-strength steels, new methods of fabrication and erection. (5) The ability to analyse such structures through model studies, 1.2 Historical review ‘The history of stayed beam bridges indicates that the idea of supporting a beam by inclined ropes or chains hanging from a mast or tower has been known since ancient times. The Egyptians! applied the idea for their sailing ships as shown in Fig. 1.1. In some tropical regions of the world primitive types of cable-stayed bridge, such as shown in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3, were built®, Inclined vines Fig. J.) Egyptian siling attached to the trees on either bank supported a walk which was woven boat with rope-stayed sailbeam of vines and bamboo sticks.Fig. 1.2. Primitive bamboo bridge in Borneo Fig. 1.3 below) Primitive bamboo bridge in LaasFig. 14 Bamboo bridge with bamboo stays over Serajoe River in Java, Indonesia Figure 1.4 shows a primitive bridge of bamboo stays interwoven with vines with the ends fastened to trees at each side. This crude structure indicates that its builders had a vague idea of some of the principles of bridge engineering. In 1617, Faustus Verantius proposed a bridge system having a timber deck supported by inclined eyebars* ; see Fig. 1.5. Ns. PERREV Fig. 1.5 Bridge stiffened by eyebars, designed by Faustus Verantius, Iraly, 1617.THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 5 Like all bridge designs of this epoch, it exhibits many departures from what a structural analysis would dictate; nevertheless, it contains the main features and basic principles of a metal suspension bridge stiffened by stays In 1784, a German carpenter, Immanuel Lischer* in Fribourg designed a timber bridge of 105 ft (32 m) span consisting of timber stays attached to a timber tower (Fig. 1.6). In 1817, two British engineers, Redpath and Brown, built the King’s Meadows Bridge’, a footbridge in England which had a span of approxi- mately 110 ft (33.6 m), using sloping wire stay cable suspension members attached to cast iron towers (Fig. 1.7). Fig. 1.6 _All-timber bridge stiffened by inclined timber stays, designed by Loscher in Germany, 1784, Fig. 1.7 King's Meadows Bridge, England, 18176 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES Fig. 1.8 Dryburgh Bridge, England, 1817 The system of inclined chains was adopted in a bridge builtat Dryburgh Abbey across the Tweed River® in 1817. It had a 260 ft (79.3 m) span, and was 4 ft (1.2 m) wide (Fig. 1.8). It was observed that the bridge had a very noticeable vibration when crossed by pedestrians, and the motion of the chains appeared to be easily accelerated. In 1818, six months after the completion of the bridge, it was destroyed by a violent gale. Around 1821, the French architect Poyet” suggested hanging the beams up to rather high towers with wrought iron bars. In this system he Proposed using a fan-shaped arrangement of the stays, all being anchored at the top of the tower (Fig. 1.9). Poyet’s idea was further developed by the famous French engineer Navier who, in 1823, studied bridge systems stiffened by inclined chains® (Pig. 1.10). By comparing both the weights of the deck and the inclined chains, Navier found that for a given span and height of the towers, the cost of both systems was approximately equal Fig. 1.9 Fan type stayed bridge proposed by Poyct, France, 1821 HH i“THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM it Fig. 1.10 Chain-stiffened bridge systems proposed by Navier, France, 18238 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES Fig. 1.12 Tiverton Bridge, England, 1837 Fig. 1.13 Harp type stayed bridge by Hatley, England, 1840‘THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 9 In 1824, a bridge was erected across the Saale River at Nienburg, Ger- many, with a 256 ft (78.0 m) span and having the main girder stiffened by inclined members’. However, this bridge had excessive deflections under loading and the following year it collapsed under a crowd of people because of failure of the chain-stays (Fig. 1.11). 1837 Motley?® built a bridge at Tiverton, England, a highly redun- dant double cantilever with straight stays (Fig. 1.12). ‘The other type of stay arrangement, with parallel stays, now called harp-shaped, was suggested by Hatley!" in 1840 (Fig. 1.13), He men- tioned that this system provided less stiffness than the fan-shaped one. One interesting structure of the inclined-cable type is presented by the bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal'? in England (Fig. 1.14). And in 1843, Clive! proposed an original system of a cable-stayed bridge, shown in Fig. 1.15. Fig. 1.14 ‘The Manchester Ship Canal Bridge, England ==-= 106'-00" === Fig. 1.15 Bridge system proposed by Clive, England, 184310 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: Fig. 1.16 The Franz Joscph Bridge over the Moldau River in Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1868 In 1868 the Franz Joseph Bridge, designed by Ordish and Le Feuvre!*, was built over the Moldau River at Prague, Czechoslovakia (Fig. 1.16) This bridge actually represents a combination of a cable-stayed and a classical suspension bridge ‘A new form of suspension was introduced in this bridge, using sloping rods running directly from the panel points of the floor system to the tops of the towers, the direct tension members being supported and held in position by catenary cables between the towers. These have no other purpose than to sustain the weight of the direct tension bars. Here is a very interesting idea of supporting an intermediate joint by an inclined bar which transfers the tension to the longest stay of the other half of the span. ‘The Albert Bridge’* over the Thames at Chelsea with a main span of 400 ft (122 m) and dating back to 1873, was built by Ordish, using his system (Fig. 1.17). In this bridge the suspension system comprises tie Fig. 1.17 The Albert Bridge over the River Thames, England, 1873THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM. il members converging at the top of the towers. There are three sloping tie members on each side of the center span and four on each side of the end spans. The short historical review presented here indicates that the idea of the stayed beam bridge is very old. However, it was not successfully applied until the twentieth century, The reasons for such slow progress have to be found in the collapse of several of the first built cable-stayed bridges. Inclined stays were first introduced in England and widely used there in the early part of the nineteenth century. However, a number of suspen- sion bridges with such stays failed, on account of insufficient resistance to wind pressure, and this led to the partial abandonment of that type in England. It should be noted that in many cases these early cable-stayed bridges actually possessed structural defects which led to their destruction. This was mainly due to the misunderstanding on the part of the designers of the actual structural behavior of such bridges and of the defects in their construction. Cables, for instance, were usually of an insufficient cross-section and were not tightened during erection, Consequently, cables performed their proper function only after substantial deformation of the whole structure under the action of the load. This aspect of their behavior led to the opinion that cable-stayed bridges were exceptionally flexible and not safe. It was Navier who reported on these failures and suggested using suspension bridges instead of cable-stayed bridges. Navier’s statement led bridge engineers to prefer the suspension-type bridge. In the second half of the nineteenth century inclined stays were re- viewed in America by the famous bridge engineer Roebling. In connec tion with the stiffening truss, introduced by Roebling, and efficient lateral bracings, inclined stays proved more effective. The cables in suspension bridges designed by Roebling were always assisted by stays'®. A network of diagonal stays occupied the same in- clined plane as that of the cables. The purpose of these stays was twofold. They not only assisted the cables greatly in the support of the bridge, but they also supplied the most economical and efficient means for stiffening the floor against cumulative undulations that may be started by the action of the wind In 1855 Roebling built the first successful railroad suspension bridge in the world across the Niagara River (Fig. 1.18). The total load was divided between the cables and an extensive system of radiating stays. The application of a system of stays provided all the stiffness required for the passage of trains at a rapid rate, as well as stability against the wind action, Roebling also provided a generous system of inclined stays in the12 ‘CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES Fig. 1.18 The Niagara suspension bridge, USA, 1855 Fig. 1.19 ‘The Ohio River bridge at Cincinnati, USA, 1867Fig. 120. “The Brooklyn Bridge, USA, 1883 construction of the Ohio Bridge (Fig. 1.19). Nearly one-half of the total weight of the roadway and the live load was carried by diagonal stays of wire rope, running straight from the tops of the towers to successive points along the floor. The main cables, themselves stiffened by this arrangement, really had to carry only about one-half of the toral weight of the roadway and load. The stays served effectively to strengthen the floor and to prevent or check vibration during the passage of heavy loads and in high winds. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Brooklyn Bridge (Fig. 1.20) is the system of inclined stays radiating downward from the tops of the towers to the floor of the span. Roebling introduced them primarily for the critical function of adding rigidity to the span, and then ingeniously took advantage of the additional load-carrying capacity which they inci- dentally supplied. This contribution to the strength of the bridge was explained in simple terms by the designer: The floor, in connection with the stays, will support itself without the assistance of the cable, the supporting power of the stays alone will be ample to hold up the floor. If the cables were removed, the bridge would sink in the center, but would not fall. As we know today, the designers of the old days had not yet been able tocalculate the forces in the inclined cables correctly, and they also under- estimated the influence of hyperstatic behavior and of the sag of the stays.14 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES Consequently, the stayed-beam bridge system was condemned and abandoned, and only at the beginning of the twentieth century, with the introduction of wire cables, high-grade steel and the further development of the structural theory, was it possible to re-introduce the cable-stayed system. A few bridges of a mixture of the stayed-bridge system and the sus- pension-bridge system were built in France in the nineteenth century by the famous engineer Arnodin. In this system, diagonal stays radiate from the tower tops with no vertical hangers in this interval. This system reduces deflections of the stiffening girders, and permits the use of smaller heights of the stiffening girder. This arrangement of loading distorts the curve of the cables from the catenary, but substantially reduces the amount of load upon them. Bridges of this mixed system did not find wide application mainly because of their aesthetical imperfection, the mixture being less satis factory than either of the two systems individually. In the system introduced by Arnodin, who built many French suspen- sion bridges in the second half of the nineteenth century, the inclined stays extend from the towers to near the quarter-points of the span, while the middle portion of the span is suspended from the cables. ‘The bridge over the Sadne River at Lyons designed by Arnodin'”, has a span of 397 ft (121 m) (Fig. 1.21), Diagonal stays are shown at ends radiating from the tower tops with no vertical hangers in this interval Of similar conception was the bridge over the Rhéne River at Avignon (Fig. 1.22). In 1904 Arnodin built over the Blavet River, the Bonhomme Bridge 778 ft (237 m) long with a main span of 535 ft (163 m) and side spans of 121 ft (37 m) each'® (Fig, 1.23). The main span was divided into three parts, the central portion being hung from five continuous cables on each side, and the two end portions from six diagonal cables on each side. The original idea of Poyct to use fan-shaped arrangements of the stays was modified, improved and successfully employed by Arnodin in the transporter bridge built in 1903 at Nantes (Fig. 1.24). The lightness of the suspension system with cables radiating from the tops of the slender tapering towers creates the impression of an elegant structure. The first rational solution for cable-stayed bridges which satisfied the necessary stiffness and economic conditions, was proposed by Gisclard?’, a French engineer, in 1899. He introduced a new system consisting basically of inclined and horizontal cables, His system presents geo- metrically stable cable trusses. The inclined cables do not transfer the horizontal component of the cable force onto the stiffening girder. This system actually represents a three-hinged arch, having diagonals made of cables. ‘The Gisclard system is less appealing to the eye, but appears to beFig. 1.21 Bridge over the Saéne River at Lyons, France, 1888 Fig. 1.22 The Rhone River bridge at Avignon, France, 1888 Fig. 1.23 (@elow) Bon- homme Bridge over the Biavet River, Marbihan, France, 190416 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 140.996 - Fig. 1.24 Transporter bridge at Nantes, France, 1903 | 839'-0" Fig. 1.26 (above) ‘The Cassagne Bridge, France, 1907 Fig. 1.27 (right) Levardricux Bridge, France, 1925THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 17 particularly adapted to railroad traffic. In that system the inclined stays extend across the entire span and form a main carrying system in which the material is utilized in tension to the greatest possible extent. Bridges of this system found wide application in France and her former colonies. A typical bridge of Gisclard’s system is shown in Fig. 1.25, and another well-known example is represented by the Cassagne Bridge, having a 512 ft (156 m) central span. It was built in 1907 for a narrow gauge electric railroad (Fig. 1.26). Due to its suitability, Gisclard’s sys- tem showed distinctive advantages in a number of bridges. Applying the basic concept of Gisclard’s system, the French engineer Leinekugel le Cocq?° proposed a bridge system having inclined cables and transfer of the horizontal components of the cables to the stiffening girder. This system proved to be very economical and to give only small deformations. A typical example of this system is the Lezardrieux Bridge over the Trieaux River in France built in 1925 (Fig. 1.27). This cable- stayed bridge may be considered a prototype of the contemporary cable-stayed bridge, having a fan-type system. ‘The structural system of this bridge is many times statically indeter- minate and performs as a three-dimensional system because, in addition to the main girders, both a supporting deck and stringers also participate in the performance of the main bridge system as one integral unit. The bridge was designed with hinges at the quarter points of the stiffening girder under the assumption that the maximum bending moments at these locations act similarly as in suspension bridges. However, as exact analysis shows, the bending moments at the above locations are small, and hinges are not only unnecessary but actually decrease the general stiffness of the whole bridge system. In 1938 Dischinger introduced stay cables into the design of a sus- pension railroad bridge with a 2468 ft (753 m) span over the Elbe River, near Hamburg, Germany. To reduce rather large deflections of the conventional suspension bridge system under heavy railroad loading, Dischinger introduced stay cables using high-strength wires, and accepted high stresses, reducing the sag of the cables which have visually a softening effect (Fig. 1.28). Investigation by Dischinger established the fact that stiffness and aero- dynamic stability can be achieved by combining the main suspension cables with stays. An absolute prerequisite for this is that the inclined cables must be subjected to considerable initial tension. Since World War II, the rapid advancement of bridge construction has brought about the need to develop a new concept in bridge design. In order to achieve economy of both material and cost, designers have gone back to the cable-stayed bridge concept. A leading role in the new development of this bridge system was played by Dischinger”", who pub- lished the results of his studies in 1949.18 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 298.6! 1033.2" ° 298.6! + i _ Fig. 1.28 Cable-stayed bridge system by ° Dischinger, Germany, 1938 ee 1344.8! 298.6" Fig. 1.29 ‘The Stréimsund Bridge, Sweden, 1935THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 19 After 1950, several cable-stayed bridges were proposed at competitions for the reconstruction of bridges across the Rhine River in Germany. Comparative estimates of the cost proved that these cable-stayed bridges were more economical than the suspension or the self-anchored suspen- sion bridges. In 1952, Leonhardt”? designed the cable-stayed bridge across the Rhine in Diisseldorf, but the bridge was not built until 1958. In the same period, the German firm Demag?%, in collaboration with Dischinger, designed the Strémsund Bridge in Sweden, which, erected in 1955, may be considered as the first modern cable-stayed bridge (Fig. 1.29). ‘After the first two cable-stayed bridges of modern design had proved to be very stiff under a traffic load, aesthetically appealing, economical and relatively simple to erect, the way was open for further wide and successful application. The new system became rapidly popular among German bridge engineers and, about ten years later, in several other countries, too. It is now increasingly applied by designers all around the world. ‘The technical literature contains references to more than 50 bridges that have been built since 1955 or are being contemplated, incorporating the system of cable stays, Approximately one-third have been built in Germany and others are located throughout the world. A brief review of the development of cable-stayed bridges may be found in recent publica- tions on this subject”4~?° 1.3. Basic concepts The application of inclined cables gave a new stimulus to the construc- tion of large bridges. The importance of cable-stayed bridges increased rapidly and within only one decade they have become so successful that they have taken their rightful place among classical bridge systems. It is interesting to note how this development which has so revolutionized bridge construction, but which in fact is no new discovery, came about ‘The beginning of this system, probably, may be traced back to the time when it was realized that rigid structures could be formed by joining triangles together. It would be easy to refer to such examples in the history of bridge building, as shown in Figs. 1.1-1.7. Although most of these earlier designs were based on sound principles and assumptions, the girder stiffened by inclined cables suffered various misfortunes which regrettably resulted in abandonment of the system Nevertheless, the system in itself was not at all unsuitable. The solution of the problem had unfortunately been attempted in the wrong way. Oni the one hand, the equilibrium of these highly indeterminate sys- tems had not been clearly appreciated and controlled, and on the other,Fig. 1.30 Systems of cable ‘arrangement 20 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES the tension members were made of timber, round bars or chains. They consisted therefore of low-strength material which was fully stressed only after a substantial deformation of the girder took place. ‘This may explain why the renewed application of the cable-stayed system was possible only under the following conditions: (1) The correct analysis of the structural system. (2) The use of tension members having under dead load a considerable degree of stiffness due to high pre-stress and beyond this still suf- ficient capacity to accommodate the live load. (3) The use of erection methods which ensure that the design assump- tions are realized in an economic manner. The renaissance of the cable-stayed system, however, was finally suecess- fully achieved only during the last decade. Modern cable-stayed bridges present a three-dimensional system con- sisting of stiffening girders, transverse and longitudinal bracings, ortho- tropic-type deck and supporting parts such as towers in compression and inclined cables in tension. The important characteristics of such a three-dimensional structure is the full participation of the transverse con- struction in the work of the main longitudinal structure. This means a considerable increase in the moment of inertia of the construction which permits a reduction in the depth of the girders and economy in steel 14 Arrangement of the stay cables According to the various longitudinal cable arrangements, cable-stayed bridges could be divided into the following four basic systems shown in Fig. 1.30. stay singte | pouste tarece | muctipLe | vaRiAgLe system 1 2 3 5 eunote 1] oon CONVERGING AN, Bs, aA OR RADIAL HARP OR fr 2) parauuen BS, | AN >|>|> |‘THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 21 1. RADIAL OR CONVERGING SYSTEM In this system all cables are leading to the top of the tower. Structurally, this arrangement is perhaps the best, as by taking all cables to the tower top the maximum inclination to the horizontal is achieved and conse- quently it needs the smallest amount of steel. The cables carry the maximum component of the dead and live load forces, and the axial component of the deck structure is at a minimum. However, where a number of cables are taken to the top of the tower, the cable supports or saddles within the tower may be very congested and a considerable vertical force has to be transferred. ‘Thus the detailing becomes rather complex. 2. HARP OR PARALLEL SYSTEM In this system the cables are connected to the tower at different heights, and placed parallel to each other, This system may be preferred from an aesthetic point of view. However, it causes bending moments in the tower. In addition, it is necessary to study whether the support of the lower cables can be fixed at the tower leg or must be made movable in a horizontal direction. The harp-shaped cables give an excellent stiffness for the main span, if each cable is anchored to a pier on the river banks as was done for Knie Bridge at Diisseldorf, Germany. The quantity of steel required for a harp-shaped cable arrangement is slightly higher than for a fan-shaped arrangement. The curve of steel quantity suggests choosing a higher tower which will also increase the stiffness of the cable system against deflections. 3. FAN OR INTERMEDIATE SYSTEM. ‘The fan or intermediate stay cable arrangement represents a modifica- tion of the harp system. The forces of the stays remain small so that single ropes could be used. All ropes have fixed connections in the tower. The Nord Bridge, Bonn, Germany, is a typical example of this arrangement. 4. STAR SYSTEM ‘The star pattern is an aesthetically attractive cable arrangement. However, it contradicts the principle that the points of attachment of the cables should be distributed as much as possible along the main girder. 1.5 Positions of the cables in space With respect to the various positions in space which may be adopted for the planes in which the cable stays are disposed there are two basic arrangements: two-plane systems and single-plane systems (Fig. 1.31).LEW AR, (b) A (©) a (4)THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 23 1, TWO VERTICAL PLANES SYSTEM Two alternative layouts may be adopted when using this system: the cable anchorages may be situated outside the deck structure, or they may be built inside the main girders. The first layout is the better of the two in that no area of the deck surface is obstructed by the presence of cables and towers, as in the second case. There is, however, a disadvantage in that the transverse distance of the cable anchorage points from the webs of the main girders requires sub- stantial cantilevers to be constructed in order to transfer the shears and bending moment into the deck structure. Also the substructure, especially the piers for the towers, has to be longer, because in this case the towers stand apart and outside the cross-section of the bridge. Where the cables and towers lie within the cross-section of the bridge, the area taken up cannot be utilized as part of the roadway and may be only partly used for the sidewalk. Thus an area of the deck surface is made non-effective and has to be compensated for by increasing the over- all width of the deck. 2. TWO INCLINED PLANES SYSTEM This system was first used for the Severin Bridge in Cologne, Germany, where the cables run from the edges of the bridge deck to a point above the centerline of the bridge on an A-shaped tower. ‘This arrangement can be recommended for very long spans where the A-shaped tower has to be very high and needs the lateral stiffness given by the triangle and the frame action. Joining all cables on the top of this tower has a favorable effect regarding wind oscillations, because it helps to prevent the dangerous torsional movement of the deck. 3. SINGLE PLANE SYSTEM Another system is that of bridges with only one vertical plane of stay cables along the middle longitudinal axis of the superstructure. In this case the cables are located in a single vertical strip, which is not being used by any form of traffic. This arrangement requires a hollow box main girder with considerable torsional rigidity in order to keep the change of cross-section deformation due to eccentric live load within allowable limits. It is therefore not necessary to increase the width of the superstructure when using the central box girder system. This system which was proposed by Haupt?” can be used if there is a median space to separate two opposite traffic lanes. In this way, no extra width is needed for the tower, and the cables at deck level are protected against accidental impact from cars. The single plane system also creates a lane separation as a natural con- tinuation of the highway approaches to the bridge. This is an economical and aesthetically acceptable solution, providing an unobstructed view24 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES from the bridge. In addition, this system also offers the advantage of relatively small piers, because their size is determined by the width of the main girder. It should be noted that all the possible variations regarding the longi- tudinal arrangements of the cables used with two plane bridges are also applied to single plane central girder bridges. 1.6 Tower types The various possible types of tower construction are illustrated in Fig. 1.32, which shows that they may take the form of: (1) Trapezoidal portal frames (2) Twin towers (3) A-frames (4) Single towers. Fig. 1.32. Tower types 1 Portal tower 4 A-frame tower 2Twin tower 5 Single tower 3Twin tower 6 Side tower Portal type towers were used in the design of early cable-stayed bridges, as in the case of suspension bridges, where the portal type was commonly used to obtain stiffness against the wind load which the cable transfers to the top of the towers, However, later investigation of cable-stayed bridges indicated that the horizontal forces of the cables were in fact, relatively small, so that freely standing tower legs could be used without disadvant- age. The inclined stay cables even give a stabilizing restraint force when the top of the tower is moved transversely. With single towers or twin towers with no cross-member, the tower is stable in the lateral direction as long as the level of the cable anchorages is situated above the level of the base of the tower. In the event of lateralTHE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 25 displacement of the top of the tower due to wind forces, the length of the cables is increased and the resulting increase in tension provides a restor- ing force. Longitudinal moment of the tower is restricted by the restrain ing effect of the cables fixed at the saddles or tower anchorages. There are three different solutions possible regarding the support arrangement of the towers: 1. TOWERS FIXED AT THE FOUNDATION In this case large bending moments are produced in the tower. The majority of cable-stayed bridges in Germany have, however, been built with the towers fixed at the base, and it is stated that the advantage of increased rigidity of the structure thus obtained offsets the disadvantage of the high bending moments in the tower. Towers with fixed legs are relatively flexible, and loading and tem- perature do not cause significant stresses in the structure, In this case, the main girders pass between the frame legs and are supported on the transverse beam. 2. TOWERS FIXED AT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE In the case of the single-box main-bridge system, the towers are generally fixed to the box. With this arrangement it is necessary not only to rein- force the box but to provide strong bearings. The supports also may resist the additional horizontal forces caused by the increased friction forces in the bearings. 3. HINGED TOWERS For structural reasons, the towers may be hinged at the base in the longi- tudinal direction of the bridge. This arrangement reduces the bending moments in the towers and the number of redundants, which simplifies analysis of the overall structure. Also, in cases with bad soil conditions, linear hinges at the tower supports are provided, allowing longitudinal rotation, so that bending moments are not carried by the foundation. 17 Deck types In the search for a more efficient bridge deck, a major advance has been made with the development of the orthotropic steel deck. Most cable- stayed bridges have orthotropic decks which differ from one another only as far as the cross-sections of the longitudinal ribs and the spacing of the cross-girders is concerned. Typical ribs used in an orthotropic deck are shown in Fig. 1.33. Cross-girders are usually 6-8 ft (1.8-2.5 m) apart for decks stiffened by flexible ribs, and 15-18 ft (4.6-5.5 m) apart in the case of decks stiffened26 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: Fig. 1.33 Rib types (2) Torsionally weak or open type (b) Tersionally stiff or box type 6 7 8 9 10 (b) by box-type ribs possessing a high degree of torsional rigidity. ‘The orthotropic deck performs as the top chord of the main girders or trusses. It may be considered as one of the main structural elements which lead to the successful development of modern cable-stayed bridges. How- ever, it is not intended to discuss the orthotropic system in detail because the analysis and design of this system have been treated extensively in the technical literature?® ?° For relatively small spans in the 200-300 ft (60-90 m) range it is con- venient to use a reinforced concrete deck acting as a composite section with the steel grid formed by the stringers, floor beams and main girders. An alternative solution is presented by a reinforced concrete deck acting monolithically with the main reinforced or prestressed concrete girders. 1.8 Main girders and trusses The following three basic types of main girders or trusses are presently being used for cable-stayed bridges: 1, STEEL GIRDERS Bridges built with solid web main girders may be divided into two types: those constructed with I-girders and those with one or more enclosed box sections, as shown in Fig. 1.34. Plated I-girders with a built-up bottom flange comprising a number of cover plates have been used in some bridges. It is considered that in this way, the required inertia of the section can be made to fit the moment envelope exactly, that no excess steel is being used, and thus the minimum weight of steel is attained. It is felt, however, that this arrangement does not necessarily produce the most economical solution.THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 27 Types of main girder ‘Arrangement Deck cross ~ se Twin 1 I girder Single 2| rectangular box girder Central box 3) girder and side single web girders Single twin 4 | cellular box girder and sloping struts Single 5 | trapezoidal box girder Twin 6| rectangular box girder Twin [7] trapezoiaat ey box girder Fig. 1.34 girder Box girders in comparison often have portions of their span where a certain minimum plate thickness has to be maintained to prevent local buckling and to provide protection from corrosion, even though the desired inertia does not require such thickness, ‘They do, however, have the great advantage of simplicity of fabrication in comparison to plate Lgirders, and most important, a standard section with only the plate thickness varying can be produced in series, which significantly reduces fabrication costs. Also, the inside surfaces are not exposed to the atmo- sphere, and thus initial protective treatment and later maintenance costs are reduced. Box girders may be rectangular or trapezoidal in form, i.e. with web plates vertical or sloping. The trapezoidal section is often used in order to keep the bottom flange area to the desired size, whilst the support to the deck plate from the webs is provided at an optimum position. Although fabrication costs of the inclined web plates are higher, an overall saving can often be achieved. Both plate girder and box section main girders are used for cable-stayed bridges, but it is felt that box Types of main28 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES. Types of stiffening truss Type of bridge Deck cross-section : ed Highway ‘and railroad project ) Highway : and railroad {project ) Highway a = 4 and railroad ( project } Fig. 1.35. Deck supported by stiffening trusses sections have a further advantage due to their better torsional stiffness. Unsymmetrical live loading and wind forces can produce high torsional moments and box sections are inherently better suited to carry this type of loading and therefore reduce torsional rotations in the deck. 2. TRUSSES During the last decade trusses have rarely been used in the construction of cable-stayed bridges. Compared to solid web girders, trusses present an unfavorable visual appearance; they require a great deal of fabrication and maintenance, and protection against corrosion is difficult. Thus, except in special circumstances, a solid web girder is more satis- factory both from an economical and an aesthetic viewpoint. However, trusses may be used instead of girders for aerodynamical reasons. Also, in the case of combined highway and railroad traffic, when usually double deck structures are used, trusses should be provided as the main carrying members of such bridges. In Fig. 1.35, typical bridge cross-sections incorporating trusses are shown.‘THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 29 Type of girder Deck cross - section ~3 Single box : girder (Wadi Kut Bridge, Libya } Twin box i girders (River Parana Bridge, Argentina) Twin box girders: 3 , ( River Waal Bridge a a) a) Multiple box a girder ( Polcevera Viaduct, Italy) Fig. 1.36 Reinforced and prestressed concrete girders 3. REINFORCED OR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDERS During the last decade a number of cable-stayed bridges have been built with a reinforced or prestressed concrete deck and main girders. These bridges are economical, possess high stiffness and exhibit relatively small deflections. The damping effect of these monolithic structures is very high and vibrations are relatively small. Such outstanding structures as, for instance, the Maracaibo Bridge in Venezuela, indicate that this new bridge system possesses many excellent characteristics. Typical cross- sections of this system are shown in Fig. 1.36 1.9 Structural advantages ‘The introduction of the cable-stayed system in bridge engineering has resulted in the creation of new types of structures which possess many excellent characteristics and advantages. Outstanding among these are their structural characteristics, efficiency and wide range of application.30 CABLE-STAYED BRI The basic structural characteristics and reasons for the rapid development and success of cable-stayed bridges are as outlined below. Cable-stayed bridges present a space system, consisting of stiffening girders; steel or concrete deck and supporting parts as towers acting in compression and inclined cables in tension. By their structural behavior cable-stayed systems occupy a middle position between the girder type and suspension type bridges. ‘The main structural characteristic of this system is the integral action of the stiffening girders and prestressed or post-tensioned inclined cables, which run from the tower tops down to the anchor points at the stiffening girders. Horizontal compressive forces due to the cable action are taken by the girders and no massive anchorages are required. The substructure, therefore, is very economical. Introduction of the orthotropic system has resulted in the creation of new types of superstructure which can easily carry the horizontal thrust of stay cables with almost no additional material, even for very long spans. In old types of conventional superstructures the slab, stringers, floor beams and main girders were considered as acting independently. Such superstructures were not suitable for cable-stayed bridges. With the orthotropic type deck, however, the stiffened plate with its large cross- sectional area acts not only as the upper chord of the main girders and of the transverse beams, but also as the horizontal plate girder against wind forces, giving modern bridges much more lateral stiffness than the wind bracings used in old systems. In fact, in orthotropic systems, all elements of the roadway and secondary parts of the superstructure participate in the work of the main bridge system. This results in reduction of the depth of the girders and economy in the steel. Another structural characteristic of this system is thatitis geometrically unchangeable under any load position on the bridge, and all cables are always ina state of tension. This characteristic of the cable-stayed systems permits them to be built from relatively light flexible elements—cables. ‘The important characteristic of such a three-dimensional bridge is the full participation of the transverse structural parts in the work of the main structure in the longitudinal direction. This means a considerable increase in the moment of inertia of the construction, which permits a reduction of the depth of the girders and a consequent saving in steel. The orthotropic system provides the continuity of the deck structure at the towers and in the center of the main span. The continuity of the bridge superstructure over many spans has many advantages and is actually necessary for a good cable-stayed bridge. Considering the range of applications in the domain of highway bridges, cable-stayed bridges fill the gap that existed between deck type and suspension bridges. Orthotropic deck plate girders showed superior- ity over other systems in the case of medium spans. For long spans, how-THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM. 31 ever, they required considerable girder depth. The cable-stayed bridge provides a solution to this problem, based on a structural system com- prising an orthotropic plate deck and a continuous girder. Comparative analysis of cable-stayed and suspension bridges indicates the structural superiority of this new system even for large spans, as is shown in the following section. 1.10 Comparison of cable-stayed and suspension bridges The idea of suspended bridge structures is to support the bridge deck with cables. However, the cable-stayed bridge differs from the suspen- sion bridge in the manner its deck is supported, and in resulting structural characteristics. In suspension bridges the deck is supported from loosely hung main cables with vertical suspenders, but in cable-stayed bridges the deck is supported directly from the towers with stay cables. This provides a significantly stiffer structure. Also generally the deflections are less, therefore the deck can be made lighter and more slender. Structurally this improves cable-stayed bridge wind resistance and aesthetically the appearance. Comparison between modern types of suspension bridges and cable- stayed bridges clearly indicates from several points of view that the cable- stayed bridge is superior to the suspension bridge. Due to results of several competitions, the opinion became established that the cable- stayed bridge fitted into the gap between the plate girder beam, with spans of up to 700 ft (215 m), and the suspension bridge, with spans larger than 1400 ft (430 m). Comparison of the suspension and cable-stayed bridge systems indicates substantial progress in applications of cable-stayed bridges. For example, in the competition for the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark in 1967, cleven cable-stayed bridges received prizes from a total number of eighteen bridges. Incidently, all those bridges have to carry not only highway but railway loading. In 1968 for the competition for the bridge across the Strait of Messina, Italy, a cable-stayed bridge with a 4264 ft (1300 m) main span was in the award group, as well as a number of suspension bridges. In Japan, Hitsuishijima and Iwagurojima cable-stayed bridges will have spans of 607 + 1378 + 607 ft (185 + 420 + 184 m) and traffic running on a two- level stiffening truss with roadway on the upper deck and railway on the lower deck. The Arcash Kaikyo Bridge is planned to be the longest cable-stayed bridge, with a main span of 5838 ft (1780 m). The superiority of the cable-stayed bridge over the suspension bridge may be based on a comparison of their structural characteristics, following an analysis as proposed and developed by Gimsing*’.32 ‘CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 1. RELATIVE COSTS AND QUANTITIES OF STEEL. An investigation was carried out to compare the costs and quantities of steel required for suspension and cable-stayed bridges for spans of 410 + 1640 + 410 ft (125 + 500 + 125 m), with cables of the harp and fan configuration. The relative cost of steel included the total cost of the cables and the pylon with respect to the unit cost. When considering the ratio of pylon height and length of main span, it was found that cable- stayed bridges with the fan system give the minimum cost, while the cost of the suspension bridge is 24% higher. Gimsing® also compared suspension and cable-stayed bridges with the fan system for 3280 ft (100 m) and 6560 ft (2000 m) spans, considering equal loads, materials and type of stiffening girder, and the amount of steel is shown in Table 1.1. ‘The data indicates that for the cable-stayed system, in the optimum solution for spans of up to 3280 ft (1000 m) and somewhat beyond for 6560 ft (2000 m) the main span apparently requires larger quantities of structural steel but less of cable steel, when compared with the suspension system. Table 1.1 Quantities of steel. Bridge system Span Cable steel Structural steel (m) (tons) (tons) Suspension 7500 23 000 1000 Cable-stayed 3900 25.000 Suspension 3600 55.000 2000 Cable-stayed 1900 94.000 2. perLEcTION The deformation characteristics are illustrated by deflection curves under different loading cases. Consider a three-span structure having a main span of 3280 ft (1000 m). For both symmetrical and asymmetrical traffic loadings over half the length of the main span, the suspension bridge has a greater deflection at midspan than does the cable-stayed bridge. However, deflection curves for structures with a 6560 ft (2000 m) main span for the above loadings indicate that the deflection of the cable- stayed bridge tends to becomes somewhat larger than that of the suspension bridge. This may be another indication that a 6560 ft (2000 m) main span is too large for cable-stayed bridges.‘THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 33 3. DECK In terms of their structural behavior, cable-stayed systems occupy a middle position between the girder and suspension type bridges. A comparison of static performance of the cable-stiffened, bridle type and self-anchored bridges is shown in Fig. 1.37. A comparison between the deck performances of suspension and cable-stayed bridges indicates a negligible difference. The suspension bridge needs more bending and torsional stiffness, while the cable- stayed bridge needs more steel area for the thrust. This thrust of the cables, creating normal forces in the deck, causes second-order bending moments due to the deflection, which must and can be kept at a minimum by using stiff cables and sufficiently deep girders. The stresses due to second-order moments are of the first order. 4. ANCHORAGES ‘The outstanding advantage of the cable-stayed bridge can be seen to be the fact that it does not require large or heavy anchorages for the cables as the suspension bridge does. The anchor forces at the ends of the cE oh COTTE TI TI @) TOOT TOE TTT TTT | (b) | Fig. 1.37 Schematic comparison between three systems. i Compressive forces in the stiffening girders. {@) Cable-stayed bridge, () bridle-chord bridge, i (©) self-anchored bridge TOTTI (c)1.38 Variation of steel weight with span for typical cable-staved bridges 34 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES cable-stayed bridge act vertically and can usually be balanced by the weight of the pier and its foundation without much additional cost. 1.11 Economics The general trend towards the utmost economy in material at an adequate carrying capacity in the design of modern highway steel bridges is realized to a high degree in cable-stayed bridges. There is no simple formula for deciding under what conditions the cable-stayed bridge should be adopted as an economical solution. However, the summary of a survey of typical cable-stayed bridges shown in Fig. 1.38 gives us some indication. This shows the weight of steel per unit of deck area plotted against the span length. ‘The diagram shows that the range of variation is relatively wide, considering two-plane and single-plane systems. The upper limits of the steel weight per unit area are greater for structures having portal type towers. The variation of the weight is influenced by many factors, such as the quality of steel, loading requirements, structural systems, the width of the bridge, etc. These data, however, may be of use in preparing preliminary designs of cable- stayed bridges. Leceno A SINGLE Towers Mm Twin Towers 500 000 7500 2000 7500 Soo g WEIGHT OF STEEL IN The study by Taylor*! made a comparison of the weight of structural steel in Ib/fi? of orthotropic deck versus center span length considering girder, suspension and cable-stayed bridges, respectively (Fig. 1.39). In Germany, Thul* compared the length of center spans to the total lengthTHE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 35 39] E = roof so mGirder bridges 1s Cable-stoyed bridges ° 300 "000 1300 2000 Spon in teat of three-span continuous girder, cable-stayed and suspension bridges (Fig. 1.40). He found limits of economical application as follows: (1) 700 ft for the center span of a three-span continuous girder. The ratio of center span to total length is 30 to 50%. (2) The suspension bridge has an economical center span of 1000 ft, which is between 60 and 70% of the total length. (3) The cable-stayed bridges are between continuous girders and suspension bridges with a center span ranging from 700 to 1000 ft and 50 to 60% of the total length. ‘Thul’s investigation indicates that cable-stayed bridges may be eco- nomical for bridges with intermediate spans. But in practice, some cable- stayed bridges have been built with longer main spans. Further studies indicate that longer main spans are possible and comparable to suspension bridges. Open design competitions held in Germany have indicated conclusively that cable-stayed bridges are the most economical solution in that country for many highway bridges having main spans in the range of EY, 200) Cn) Te00 Center span in feet Fig. 1.39 Variation of steel weight of ‘orthotropic deck for different bridge systems Fig. 140 Comparison of spans for different bridge systems36 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES 500-1200 ft (150-370 m). Structural steel weights of 70 psf (340 kg/m?) and less have been achieved at spans exceeding 900 ft (270 m), although it should be noted that wide, light sidewalks increase this figure somewhat. According to Homberg™, and provided that multiple stay systems are used, cable-stayed bridges are economically more advantageous than suspension bridges for spans of as much as 1600-2600 ft (490-800 m). ‘The cable-stayed system is more and more utilized for bridges with spans ranging from 300 ft to 1000 ft (90-300 m). New bridges are generally designed with only one box as the main carrying system. This an economical as well as an aesthetical solution. Also, new \s incorporating the intermediate supports at the flanking spans at locations of cable connections may be very economical at a relatively small cost of the additional supports. Substantial economy in the metal of main girders may be achieved by introducing variable panel lengths and reducing thereby the action of local loading. 1.12 Bridge architecture The design of a modern bridge cannot be confined to a technical solution only. Aesthetic design has become an essential part of bridge design and includes the combination of three basic elements: function, sound structural design and appropriate aesthetic treatment. The above considerations may be summarized as follows: (1) Aesthetics refers to natural or created beauty and its effect on our five senses and emotions. Since the structure primarily affects our visual sense, the designer must proportion and shape the bridge so that it is in harmony with the site, as well as a pleasing entity in itself, and is aesthetically compatible with its location and route. Harmony, unity, variety and balance are the fundamental elements of aesthetics of a bridge. These elements are physically produced by proper shaping and treatment of the component parts of the bridge to give form, line, shape, light and shadow, texture and color. Factors to be considered in the aesthetic design are: safety, ecology, compatibility with the environment, slenderness, lack of mass, continuity of lines and simplicity of details. (2) Safety pertains to the human being’s sense of security, comfort and well-being and is an important aesthetic factor. Special safety measures, bridge railing and pedestrian protection should be given due aesthetic consideration. (3) Ecology in bridge design concerns the preservation, maintenance and restoration of our environment. It is one of the elements that constitute aesthetics. The surroundings of the proposed bridge site‘THE CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SYSTEM 37 should be examined to determine the effect the bridge structure might have on the natural or man-made landscape, existing or future culture, and the inhabitants. Ground and aerial photos may be taken along the proposed route which can be an aid in achieving compatibility with surroundings. Architectural sketches, photo retouches and models may be made to ascertain the shape and proportion of the bridge. The component parts must show unity and order and should have some variety or contrast to relieve monotony. ‘The overall view of the bridge should appear to be in balance. (4) Compatibility with environments—the bridge should be shaped and proportioned in such a way that it is in harmony with its location and route. The bridge should fit into the surrounding terrain. Steel bridges should be painted with colors matching the background. (5) ‘The more slender a bridge is, the more graceful it will look. To achieve slender appearance, the span/depth ratio of superstructure and width/height ratio of piers should be kept to a minimum. Slender towers and the appropriate ratio of span length to pier height are desirable. (6) Lack of mass—the bridge should not look massive. It is not necessary that a slender bridge should have little mass. (7) Continuity of lines means smooth transaction of one part of the structure to another or of adjoining structures to the bridge. Abrupt break in continuity lines is not desirable. Handrails or barriers on bridge and on approaches should be of the same size, shape and material. Shadow lines should be continuous such that the total effect is pleasing to the eye. (8) Simplicity of details—the bridge will look simpler and smooth if it has fewer miscellaneous pieces or parts. This can be achieved easily in concrete bridges. However, the same effect can be achieved in steel bridges. Bearings should be of smaller height so as not to draw attention, Ornamentation should be limited and the bridge should afford a clear view of the surroundings. The introduction of the cable-stayed system is a true pioneering develop- ment in bridge architecture. Existing cable-stayed bridges are master- pieces of steel construction. They are pleasing in outline, clean in their anatomical conception and totally free of meaningless ornamentation This is because the design of cable-stayed bridges was governed not only by financial, practical and technical requirements, but also, to a great extent, by aesthetic and architectural considerations, In the design of modern cable-stayed bridges, one objective is to produce an aesthetically appealing bridge which blends with its surroundings ‘These bridges are truly representative of modern times. They are the product of engineering science, which is continuously advancing in