Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-968

2018 Impact Factor: 1.272

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2021, Vol. 15 Issue (5) : 1160-1180    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0760-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mechanical performance analysis and stiffness test of a new type of suspension bridge
Xia QIN, Mingzhe LIANG, Xiaoli XIE(), Huilan SONG
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
 Download: PDF(11847 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

A new type of suspension bridge is proposed based on the gravity stiffness principle. Compared with a conventional suspension bridge, the proposed bridge adds rigid webs and cross braces. The rigid webs connect the main cable and main girder to form a truss that can improve the bending stiffness of the bridge. The cross braces connect the main cables to form a closed space truss structure that can improve the torsional stiffness of the bridge. The rigid webs and cross braces are installed after the construction of a conventional suspension bridge is completed to resist different loads with different structural forms. A new type of railway suspension bridge with a span of 340 m and a highway suspension bridge with a span of 1020 m were designed and analysed using the finite element method. The stress, deflection of the girders, unbalanced forces of the main towers, and natural frequencies were compared with those of conventional suspension bridges. A stiffness test was carried out on the new type of suspension bridge with a small span, and the results were compared with those for a conventional bridge. The results showed that the new suspension bridge had a better performance than the conventional suspension bridge.
Keywords new type of suspension bridge      stiffness test      mechanical performance      railway bridge      space truss     
Corresponding Author(s): Xiaoli XIE   
Just Accepted Date: 09 September 2021   Online First Date: 22 October 2021    Issue Date: 29 November 2021
 Cite this article:   
Xia QIN,Mingzhe LIANG,Xiaoli XIE, et al. Mechanical performance analysis and stiffness test of a new type of suspension bridge[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 1160-1180.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-021-0760-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2021/V15/I5/1160
Fig.1  Structural form one of new type of suspension bridge.
Fig.2  Structural form two of new type of suspension bridge.
Fig.3  Proposed suspension bridge: (a) structural form one; (b) structural form two.
Fig.4  Force diagram of gravity-free horizontal cable.
Fig.5  Force diagram of horizontal cable.
Fig.6  Structural system transformation.
Fig.7  Cable clamp with gusset plates.
components section form material area (m2) Ixx (m4) Iyy (m4) Izz (m4) amount of steel used (t) amount of concrete used (m3)
main girder steel-concrete box Q345/C40 1.556 4.057 2.560 3.037 6974 2240
tower box section with stiffeners C60 5.76 15.894 17.667 7.523 – 2284.8
main cables circular fptk = 1860 MPa strand 0.238 0.00898 0.00449 0.00449 2526 –
hangers circular fptk = 1860 MPa strand 0.00503 4.021 × 10?6 2.011 × 10?6 2.011 × 10?6 101.6 –
Tab.1  Parameters and material consumption for components of conventional bridge
components section form material area (m2) Ixx (m4) Iyy (m4) Izz (m4) amount of steel used (t) amount of concrete used (m3)
main girder steel-concrete box Q345/C40 1.556 4.057 2.560 3.037 6974 t 2240
tower box section with stiffeners C60 5.76 15.894 17.667 7.523 – 2284.8
main cables circular fptk = 1860 MPa strand 0.238 0.00898 0.00449 0.00449 2526 –
hangers circular fptk = 1860 MPa strand 0.00503 4.021 × 10?6 2.011 × 10?6 2.011 × 10?6 101.6 –
rigid webs – Q345 0.0450 3.686 × 10?6 0.006430 0.001314 984.8 –
cross braces – Q345 0.0226 1.104 × 10?6 0.001274 1.901 × 10?4 162.4 –
Tab.2  Parameters and material consumption for components of proposed bridge
Fig.8  Elevation layouts (unit: cm): (a) conventional suspension bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.9  Element models: (a) conventional suspension bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
main components load combination I load combination II
conventional bridge (kN) proposed bridge (kN) percentage change (%) conventional bridge (kN) proposed bridge (kN) percentage change (%)
main cable near tower top 101414.5 106725.6 5.24 131503.2 121275.8 7.78
main cable mid-span position 93063.1 98665.6 6.02 120652.6 100579.8 16.64
main girder mid-span position 0.003 646.2 – 568.8 42594.6 7388.50
Tab.3  Rates of change for axial force distributions of main cables and main girders
Fig.10  Axial force distributions of main cables and main girders under load combination I: (a) conventional bridge and; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.11  Axial force distributions of main cables and main girders under load combination II: (a) conventional bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
main components load combination I load combination II
conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%) conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%)
tensile stress of main girder 70.5 80.4 14.04 128.6 89.5 30.40
compressive stress of main girder –60.9 –73.2 20.20 –116.5 –82.1 29.53
main cables 426.9 449.6 5.32 553.6 514.2 7.12
hangers 442.6 452.6 2.26 619.2 520.3 15.97
towers –16.7 –17.8 6.59 –25.3 –26.5 4.74
tensile stress of rigid webs – 32.4 – – 115.5 –
compressive stress of rigid webs – –35.9 – – –105.2 –
Tab.4  Maximum or minimum stresses of main components under load combination I or II
main components load combination III load combination IV
conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%) conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%)
tensile stress of main girder 139.6 85.2 38.97 122.4 99.7 18.55
compressive stress of main girder –130.1 –102.8 20.98 –111.8 –68.2 39.00
main cables 546.5 486.1 11.05 557.6 521.6 6.46
hangers 606.6 515.6 15.00 626.9 519.3 17.16
towers –27.5 28.6 204.00 –24.6 –25.3 2.85
tensile stress of short rigid webs – 116.4 – – 135.8 –
compressive stress of short rigid webs – –125.8 – – –117.5 –
Tab.5  Maximum or minimum stresses of main components under load combination III or IV
structural displacement conventional bridge (mm) proposed bridge (mm) percentage change (%)
minimum negative deflection of the girder 975.2 325.9 66.6
maximum positive deflection of the girder 375.8 89.1 76.3
the sum of the maximum absolute values of positive and negative deflection 1351 415 69.3
the maximum longitudinal displacement of towers 218.7 73.2 66.53
Tab.6  Structural displacement calculation results
Fig.12  Displacement envelopes of two main girders.
Fig.13  Most adverse deformations of two bridges: (a) conventional bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.14  Comparison of some vibration modes of two bridges: (a) the first natural vibration modes and frequencies; (b) the second natural vibration modes and frequencies; (c) the third natural vibration modes and frequencies; (d) the fourth natural vibration modes and frequencies and; (e) the fifth natural vibration modes and frequencies.
components cross-section form material second moment of area (m4) torsional moment of inertia (m4) cross-sectional area (m2) amount of steel used (t) amount of concrete used (m3)
main girder steel-concrete box section Q345/C55 131.019 7.482 6.177 35160 12015
side tower box section with stiffeners C50 1171.563 914.666 42.5 – 36536
middle tower steel-concrete box section Q345/C55 281.504 260.526 11.2368 2693 23400
main cables circular section strand1860 – – 0.4417 20160 –
hangers circular section strand1860 – – 0.0086 1495 –
Tab.7  Parameters and material consumption for components of conventional bridge
components cross-section form material second moment of area (m4) torsional moment of inertia (m4) cross-sectional area (m2) amount of steel used (t) amount of concrete used (m3)
main girder steel-concrete box section Q345/C55 100.935 4.718 5.687 24890 12015
side towers box section C50 1171.563 914.666 42.5 – 36536
middle tower steel-concrete box section Q345/C55 281.504 260.526 11.2368 2693 23400
main cables circular section strand1860 – – 0.4417 20160 –
hangers circular section strand1860 – – 0.0086 1495 –
long rigid webs box section with stiffeners Q345 0.01197–0.0577 0.01545–0.0826 0.0586–0.184 2175.4 –
long rigid webs box section with stiffeners Q345 0.00371–0.01533 0.00530–0.02193 0.0303–0.0741 7789.5 –
cross bracings box section with stiffeners Q345 0.000354 0.000783 0.0157 412.7 –
Tab.8  Parameters and material consumption for components of proposed bridge
components load combination I load combination II
conventional bridge (kN) proposed bridge (kN) percentage change (%) conventional bridge (kN) proposed bridge (kN) percentage change (%)
main cable near tower top 279524 291048 4.12 306444 311015 1.49
main cable mid-span position 238588 226823 4.93 263600 236777 10.18
main girder mid-span position 0.3 2509 – 1856 69384 3638.36
Tab.9  Percentages of change for axial force distributions of main cables and main girders
Fig.15  Elevation layouts (unit: mm): (a) conventional suspension bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.16  Element models: (a) conventional suspension bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.17  Axial force distributions of main cable and main girder of bridges under load combination I: (a) conventional suspension bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.18  Axial force distributions of main cable and main girder of bridges under load combination II: (a) conventional suspension bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
main components load combination I load combination II
conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%) conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%)
tensile stress of main girder 64.3 65.0 1.0 126.7 70.1 –44.7
compressive stress of main girder –29.6 –40.5 36.8 –51.1 –53.5 4.7
main cables 632.7 618.4 –2.2 693.6 662.4 –4.5
hangers 621.9 582.4 –6.4 843.6 739.8 –12.3
side towers –18.4 –19.2 4.3 –21.3 –18.0 –15.4
middle tower –7.6 –7.6 0 –20.8 –13.1 –37.0
tensile stress of oblique chords – 46.7 – – 185.2 –
compressive stress of oblique chords – –45.3 – – –85.6 –
tensile stress of rigid webs – 54.3 – – 146.7 –
compressive stress of rigid webs – –52.1 – – –137.8 –
Tab.10  Maximum or minimum stresses of main components under load combinations I and II
main component load combination III load combination IV
conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%) conventional bridge (MPa) proposed bridge (MPa) percentage change (%)
tensile stress of main girder 103.7 55.6 –46.4 103.7 110.3 6.3
compressive stress of main girder –50.5 –67.9 34.4 –50.7 –50.9 0.4
main cables 689.0 651.4 –5.4 699 685.8 –1.9
hangers 843.6 853.8 –3.2 861.9 649.4 –24.6
side towers –20.9 –19.1 –8.6 –22.3 –19.3 –13.5
middle tower –20.6 –13.4 –34.9 –20.6 –13.3 –35.4
tensile stress of oblique chords – 179.6 – – 155.8 –
compressive stress of oblique chords – –149.4 – – –131.8 –
tensile stress of rigid webs – 172.4 – – 146.2 –
compressive stress of rigid webs – –161.4 – – –128 –
Tab.11  Maximum or minimum stresses of main components under load combinations III and IV
bridge type side towers middle tower
conventional bridge (kN) 3418.7 17174.3
proposed bridge (kN) 7426.3 10938.7
percentage change (%) 117.2 –36.3
Tab.12  Unbalanced forces of main towers
Fig.19  Comparison of unbalanced forces of main towers.
structural displacement conventional bridge proposed bridge percentage change (%)
minimum deflection of the girder (mm) –2539.9 –1076.8 –57.6
maximum deflection of the girder (mm) 1598.7 638.5 –60.1
the sum of the maximum absolute values of positive and negative deflections (mm) 4138.9 1715.3 –58.6
the maximum longitudinal displacement of side towers (mm) 233.5 133.1 –43
the maximum longitudinal displacement of middle tower (mm) 758.4 346.6 –54.2
Tab.13  Structural displacement calculation results
Fig.20  Displacement envelopes of two main girders.
Fig.21  Most adverse deformations of two bridges: (a) conventional bridge; (b) proposed bridge.
Fig.22  Comparison of some vibration modes of two bridges: (a) the first natural vibration modes and frequencies; (b) the second natural vibration modes and frequencies; (c) the third natural vibration modes and frequencies; (d) the fourth natural vibration modes and frequencies and; (e) the fifth natural vibration modes and frequencies.
components section type section dimensions (mm) material model 1 (t) model 2 (t)
main tower box-shaped section 180 × 100 × 8 Q235 steel 0.484 0.484
main cable real-circular section D16 high-strength steel wire 0.069 0.069
hanger real-circular section D6 high-strength steel wire 0.020 0.020
lateral beam box-shaped section 60 × 40 × 4 Q235 steel 0.289 0.289
longitudinal beam box-shaped section 80 × 60 × 5 Q235 steel 0.502 0.502
rigid webs double-limb structure 40 × 20 × 2.5 Q235 steel 0.376 –
bridge deck steel plate 4 Q235 steel 0.976 0.976
Tab.14  Main parameters and material consumption of two models
Fig.23  Elevation layouts (unit: cm): (a) model 1; (b) model 2; (c) girder of two models.
Fig.24  Completed test bridge.
Fig.25  System conversion. (a) Loosening cable clamps to form model 1; (b) tightening cable clamps to form model 2.
Fig.26  Sketch of experimental setup (cm).
Fig.27  Experimental process: cable clamps were loosened for model 1, and tightened for model 2.
Fig.28  Finite element models of two bridges: (a) model 1; (b) model 2.
Fig.29  Deflections of girders under first stage.
Fig.30  Deflections of girders under second stage.
Fig.31  Deflections of girders under third stage.
Fig.32  Deflections of girders under fourth stage.
1 W X Ren, I E Harik, G E Blandford, M Lenett, T M Baseheart. Roebling suspension bridge. II: Ambient testing and live-load response. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2004, 9( 2): 119– 126
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:2(119)
2 Y J Ge. Bridge engineering: Science, technology and engineering. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2019, 52( 8): 1– 5
3 S Z Zhou. State-of-the-art of suspension bridges in China. Bridge Construction, 2003, 5 : 30– 34
4 T Miyata, K Yamaguchi. Aerodynamics of wind effects on the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1993, 48( 2−3): 287– 315
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(93)90142-B
5 P Gülka, A Caner, N M Apaydin. Developments in International Bridge Engineering: Selected Papers from Istanbul Bridge Conference. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2018, 19 :
6 G Diana, G Fiammenghi, M Belloli, D Rocchi. Wind tunnel tests and numerical approach for long span bridges: the Messina bridge. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2013, 122 : 38– 49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.07.012
7 J K Yan, T B Peng, J Z Li. Shake table test of Taizhou Changjiang Highway Bridge: Test design and result analysis of seismic structural system. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2014, 44( 2): 357– 362
8 X R Dai, L Wang, C J Wang, X Y Wang, Y L Shen. Anti-slip scheme of full-vertical friction plate for multi-pylon suspension bridge. Journal of Zhejiang University, 2019, 53( 9): 1697– 1703
9 H Wang, M Yang, T Y Tao, A Q Li. Parameter sensitivity analysis on dynamic characteristics of long-span quadruple-tower suspension bridge. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2016, 46( 3): 559– 564
10 H Q Tang, G Y Xu, H S Liu. Feasibility analysis of suspension bridge type to railway bridges. Bridge Construction, 2017, 47( 2): 13– 18
11 A Capsoni, R Ardito, A Guerrieri. Stability of dynamic response of suspension bridges. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2004, 393 : 285– 307
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2017.01.009
12 W M Zhai, S L Wang. Influence of bridge structure stiffness on dynamic performance of high-speed train-track-bridge coupled system. China Railway Science, 2012, 33( 1): 19– 26
13 D Cantero, P McGetrick, C Kim, E OBrien. Experimental monitoring of bridge frequency evolution during the passage of vehicles with different suspension properties. Engineering Structures, 2019, 187 : 209– 219
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.065
14 X Zhang, B Du, T Y Xiang. Parameter sensitivity analysis of dynamic characteristics of long-span road-rail suspension bridge. Railway Standard Design, 2018, 6 : 77– 82
15 W M Zhang, Z Liu, S Xu. Jindong bridge: Suspension bridge with steel truss girder and prefabricated RC deck slabs in China. Structural Engineering International, 2019, 29( 2): 315– 318
https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2018.1507606
16 C B Feng. Control techniques for the superstructure construction of Wufengshan Changjiang River Bridge. Bridge Construction, 2020, 50( 1): 99– 103
17 C J Wang, L Wang, Y Q Ye, Y D Bai. Test study of anti-slip scheme of horizontal friction plates for middle tower saddle of multi-tower suspension bridge. Bridge Construction, 2020, 48( 2): 13– 18
18 R L Shen, K Hou, L Wang. Requirements of vertical stiffness and anti-slip safety for three-pylon suspension bridge. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 49( 3): 474– 480
19 H Cao, X Qian, Y Zhou, Z Chen, H P Zhu. Feasible range for midtower lateral stiffness in three-tower suspension bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2018, 23( 3): 06017009–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001196
20 S Chai, R Xiao, X Li. Longitudinal restraint of a double-cable suspension bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2014, 19( 4): 06013002–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000528
21 X Wang, S Chai, Y Xu. Sliding resistance of main cables in double-cable multispan suspension bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2017, 22( 3): 06016011–
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001018
22 X J Zhang, L D Ying. A summary of wind-resistant measures of long span suspension bridges. Highway, 2006, 11 : 73– 80
23 M S Andersen, J Johansson, A Brandt, S O Hansen. Aerodynamic stability of long span suspension bridges with low torsional natural frequencies. Engineering Structures, 2016, 120 : 82– 91
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.04.025
24 G Arioli, F Gazzola. Torsional instability in suspension bridges: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge case. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 2017, 42 : 342– 357
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.05.028
25 C J Li, Y L Li, M L Tang, S Z Qiang. Improvement of flutter stability of long span suspension bridge with CFRP cable by crossed hangers. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2017, 3 : 83– 90
26 D C Qi, H X Wang. Model test of main cable torsion of spatial cable suspension bridge. Railway Engineering, 2016, ( 2): 14– 17
27 X J Zhang, B N Shun, A R Chen, H F Xiang. Flutter stability of cable-stayed-suspension hybrid bridges. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2004, 7 : 106– 110
28 Ville de Goyet V de, Y Duchêne, A Propson. 16.08: The dynamic behaviour of the third Bosporus Bridge. Special Issue: Proceedings of Eurosteel 2017, 2017, 1( 2−3): 4098– 4107
29 A Barbaros, D Tayfun, G Maksym. Optimization of cables size and prestressing force for a single pylon cable-stayed bridge with Jaya algorithm. Steel and Composite Structures, 2020, 34( 6): 853– 862
30 H F Xiang, Y J Ge. Modern theory for wind resistant bridge and its application. Mechanical Engineering (New York), 2007, 1 : 1– 13
31 Z W Liu, P R Xie, Z Q Chen, G P Xu, J Xu. Aerodynamic optimization of flutter stability of long-span streamlined box girder suspension bridge. Journal of Hunan University, 2019, 3 : 1– 9
32 J Liu, H L Liao, M S Li, H Y Mei. Effect of stabilizer on flutter stability of truss girder suspension bridges. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2017, 19( 3): 1915– 1929
https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2016.17954
33 M Abdel-Rohman, M J John. Control of wind-induced nonlinear oscillations in suspension bridges using a semi-active tuned mass damper. Journal of Vibration and Control, 2006, 12( 10): 1049– 1080
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546306069036
34 Z W Guo, Y J Ge, L Zhao, K Li. Flutter suppression of long-span suspension bridge based on active control surface. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2017, 2 : 57– 68
35 H Z Xu, P M Huang. Cable tension control in anchorage span of suspension bridge. Journal of Chang’an University, 2002, 5 : 32– 41
36 Y R Pan, G H Du, L C Fan. A fine calculation of the geometry and internal force of suspension bridge under dead load. China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2000, 4 : 35– 38
37 TB 10002-2017. Code for Design on Railway Bridge and Culvert. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House Co., Ltd., 2017
38 JTG D60-2015. General Specifications for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts. Beijing: China Communications Press Co. Ltd., 2015
[1] Sattar MALEKI, Roham RAFIEE, Abolfazl HASANNIA, Mohammad Reza HABIBAGAHI. Investigating the influence of delamination on the stiffness of composite pipes under compressive transverse loading using cohesive zone method[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1316-1323.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed