Deflection theory analysis

of different cable profiles

for suspension bridges
A. Jennings

Civil Engineering Department, Queen's University, Belfast, UK

(Received May 1986)

Modifications are developed which allow deflection theory to be

used to analyse the structural behaviour of suspension bridges in
which the deck is supported by two or more cables having different
profiles. Static deflections due to concentrated and distributed loads
are considered. It is ascertained that increased stiffness can be
obtained by using such configurations.

Keywords: deflection theory, suspension bridges, cable profiles,

stiffness

The deflection theory first published by Melan in 1888 j
is a fairly accurate hand method for the structural analy-
sis of suspension bridges. The general tendency over
this century has been towards building bridges with rela-
tively weak stiffening trusses for which other hand
methods are less applicable and so deflection theory
has been given prominence amongst analytical tech-
niques. 2,3 In the past, deflection theory appears to have
been used in a computational role, the need for which
has been eroded by the availability of digital computer
techniques which use discrete rather than continuous
idealizations of the structural form. ~-7 Thus, in two
recent books on cable structures, s'9 which include sus-
pension bridges, deflection theory has been mentioned
only briefly. It may, however, be used to investigate
the importance of different parameters on the structural
characteristics of suspension bridges. ~0
In modern long-span suspension bridges, most stiff-
ness derives from gravity effects in the cable. This gra-
vity stiffness is only sensitive to span lengths, cable
support conditions and the horizontal component of ten-
sion in the cables. The weight of the suspended structure
only affects stiffness indirectly through its effect on the
tension in the cables. It is thus difficult to increase stiff-
ness for classical configurations without increasing the
size of the cables so that they can carry extra tension
load. Brown has suggested to the author the possibility
of investigating the use of multiple cables to support
suspension bridges in such a way that the cables have
different profiles. This possibility does not appear to
be discussed in the main texts on cable supported bridges
although at least one such bridge at Chungking, China
has been built. This gives a method of increasing the
gravity stiffness and therefore leads to increased options
in the design process. The purpose of this paper is to
extend deflection theory so that it can be used to analyse
multicable configurations and derive some of their struc-
tural characteristics.
Deflection theory formulae for a multicable span
The span of a suspension bridge will be considered to
be of multicable form if, when viewed in profile, there
is more than one cable visible and these cables are not
parallel to each other. Thus, in Figure 1, spans (a) and
(b) are of classical form whilst (c)-(h) are multicable.
For the purposes of this analysis, cables of the same
profile (as in Figure l ( b ) ) will be treated as if they were
a single cable. It will be assumed that each cable is con-
nected to the deck by means of closely spaced vertical
hangers and the normal deflection theory assumptions
will be made.
Since the forces in hangers are assumed to be at all
times vertical, the horizontal component of tension in
each cable will be constant across the span. Also, since
the hangers are assumed to be closely-spaced, equili-
brium of an incremental section of cable i under the
dead load condition yields:
d 2yi
wi = - H i - - ( 1)
dx 2
where y; is the vertical coordinate of cable i, w; is the
dead load per unit span at spanwise position x, and Hi
is the horizontal component of tension in cable i (Figure
2). Here y; is measured downwards from a datum. If

0141-0296/87/02084-11/ $03.00
84 Eng. Struct. 1987, Vol. 9, April 1987Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd
 Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings

a b

a
c d

Wl W
W2

e f I
v~3

I1 12 13
L

Figure 1 Possible symmetric profiles for single span of suspen-

sion bridge b
Figure 4 Three-cable single span bridge with piecewise para-
bolic cables: (a) elevation; (b) dead load distribution

w is the total dead load per unit span and H is the total
X
horizontal component of cable tension:
dy,
w = Ewi (2)
H = .~Hi (3)
Hi
If a superimposed load of p per unit is applied
to the deck, vertical equilibrium of cable i gives:

d2
qi = - (Hi + hi) - ~ (Yi + v) (4)

I I Here, qi is the increased tension per unit span in the

I111111111 hangers connected to cable i, hi the increase in the hori-
Figure 2 Equilibrium of incremental length of cable i zontal component of tension in cable i, and v the vertical
downwards deflection of the deck due to superimposed
load. It has been assumed that the hangers do not change
in length.
Treating the deck as a simple beam of bending stiff-
ness E I , equilibrium of an incremental segment gives:
Original position of cable d41:
~qi - w - p = - Eldx-- q (5)

If h is the increase in horizontal component of tension

such that:
position ~ "'"~'~q II 1d~
h = Eh, (6)
it can be shown from equations (1)-(5) that:

ofdeck ~
i, . . . .
,i/
!/ d4v d2v wihi
E l - 7 - 7~ux- ( H + h ) -;--~ox.= p - "Z H--T (7)

This equation differs from the corresponding standard

deflection theory formula only in the last term. In cases
where the imposed load is small compared with the dead
d ~ ~ _ ~ _ Deflectedposition load, this equation may be linearized by ignoring the
~- ~" ~ of deck
I- term h d 2 v / d x 2. Also, if the deck bending stiffness is
Figure 3 Deflection of incremental length of cable i ignored, it reduces to:

Eng. Struct. 1987, Vol. 9,April 85

Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings

d2F Fo_r a cable of parabolic profile it can bc shown that j~

Hq--g = s - p (8) if Oi is the slope of the line joining the two cable sup-
CLr- ports:
where: - 1 w2L "-
.ti-~ sec~ 4,, + ~-fiz-: sec ~ ( l + sin: ,~t
~, w i h i
,~,= .,. (9)
Hi
ci=sec2~,q 1 w2L 2
is the total change in hanger load per unit span. 12 H 2
There is also a compatibility condition for each span
of cable which may be obtained by examining it's de- For the analysis of gravity stiffness effects, it will be
flected position. Let ~b~,u~ and e~ be the clockwise angle assumed that the cables are axially stiff and no tempera-
of inclination, horizontal displacement, and strain at ture changes take place, so that:
spanwise coordinate x for cable i. Cable strain is related
to u and v displacements according to: 1 1 ol
u- i - - (t i = - -~i wivdx (16)
dui dv
~:,= - - c o s &i + - - s i n 4', (10)
dx dx G r a v i t y stiffness o f d i f f e r e n t s i n g l e s p a n
configurations
(see Figure 3). The increase in cable tension due to the
superimposed load, however, is hi sec &i. Hence: Gravity stiffness effects are obtained by ignoring all
influences of elastic material. Thus, the deck bending
hi stiffness and cable extensibility are both assumed to be
ei = sec tl,i + Ot (11) zero. In order to analyse gravity stiffness effects on a
EAs
single span, it will also be assumed that the towers are
adequately restrained so that the ends of the cables do
where E is Young's modulus, A i the cross-sectional area, not move.
0 the coefficient of thermal expansion of the cable, and
In cases where the cables are of uniform curvature
t the temperature rise. From equations (10) and (11):
right across the span (as is possible with configurations
(e)-(h) in Figure 1), each wi must be constant. Since
dui hi dv
- sec 2 &i + Otsec 6 i - - - t a n g,, (12) also ~i = u, =- O, the cable compatibility equations reduce
dx EA dx to:

Since tan 4', = d y j d x , the last term in this equation may

be replaced using the formula:
f Zvdx=0
(}
(17)

---tan ~bi = v - - v (13) Furthermore, the change in hanger load, is constant

dx dx 2 dr across the span. By comparison with the analysis of clas-
sical configurations by Jennings, m it can be shown that
Integrating for a span of length L and adopting end the gravity stiffness deflections for such multicable spans
conditions are the same as for a classical span having the same
(u,, v) = (&, 0) and (ui, 0) at x = 0 and L total horizontal component of cable tension, H. (Bene-
fits only arise from multicable configurations if the tower
respectively gives: tops are not otherwise restrained from horizontal move-
ment.)
~i - g~i E A i JI, sec3 ~,.&r Piecewise parabolic cable profiles
Assume that a bridge is hung from n cables in such
t. (L d2yi a way that the dead load taken by cable i is (w - # ) / n
+Ot
f0
sec2 O~dx + j0 v -~-2 dx (14) over the whole span except for segment i where it is
"~ + (w - ~ ) / n . Let the span of segment j be lj with lj
= L. The profile and dead load distribution b e t w e e n
Substituting for d2yi/dx 2 from equation (1) gives: the cables for a three cable bridge could be as shown
in Figure 4, in which the total dead load is uniformly
1 fL +fihiL distributed across the span.
- wivdx + c i OtL (15)
~,- a,= ~ , EA, Since ~i--- ui ~- 0, the cable compatibility equations
yield:
where:

f*=T
I;L ,, sec -~tO,.dx
1 / - ~
kw-- ~
w + 2~
w--
w
w+
V, = 0 (18)
V 0
where:
Ci = sec2 &idx
0 v, = Jj vdx (19)

86 Eng. Struct. 1987, Vol. 9,April

 Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings
The coefficient matrix of equation (18) is not singular
unless ~ = 0. Hence, the only solution is Vj-= 0. The
value of s will be constant across each segment. If sj
is the value across segment j then, from equation (9): 11!
w

w-~ w+2W w- = (20)

w - v~ w- ~ w+ Lh3/H3J _
The changes in cable tensions h~ may be obtained from
these equations if the values of sj are known.
Let the deck displacement consist of two components
giving:
v= 9- ~ (21)
Figure 5 Configuration and displacement diagram for single-
Equation (8) is satisfied if: cable bridge with equivalent gravity stiffness to segment j

d2~7 - P (22)
dx 2 H z z 7
d2~ S A~'-~. 6 ~r C
- (23)
dx 2 H ! K /~J-

By comparing equation (22) with that for the sagging v--~. z 7. #- . ~

bending moment, M, of a beam of length L subject
to the same loading p (namely d2M/dx 2 = - p ) and not- I Y I ~' /
ing the similar conditions v = 0 and M = 0 at both ends,
it can be deduced that the graph of O is the bending /
moment diagram of the equivalent simply-supported
beam divided by H. The graph of #has no discontinuities Figure 6 Gravitystiffness deck displacement of segment carry-
ing concentrated load
in displacement or slope and has constant curvature over
each segment, the values of curvature being determined
by the need to have a zero integral of displacement for
each segment (Vj~ 0).
~- v
Let vj and 0j be the displacement and slope of the ~ Correspondingv
for classical span
deck at the left-hand end of segment j. If segment 1
has no load applied to it, it can be shown that, in order Corresponding / ~ f -~k#
to satisfy the condition Vl = 0, it is necessary for: deflection for /j/ "~
classical span / / n~,,~,, . . . . ~
122 ll (24)
0-'-~( : 3'2) : ~ "

If further consecutive segments are not loaded, the cor-

responding formulae for 3'i = vJOj are: x/L "~z///''"l N ' / . -- --
3"i+~= lj(lj - 43')/4(l j - 33'j) (25) I1 12 13

Similarly, working from the right-hand end for segments Figure 7 Gravity stiffness deflections of span having three
which are not loaded: piecewise parabolic cables

-v, l, (26)
(=<&-') - 4 0.08 f..~..~jj Classical /71><~Two-cable
-4 / /
/ / / "'x/~/ \ /Three-cable
li( l'-4~j] (27)
%' = 4 \lj - 3 ~ /
0.040 ~ , /_ _, __ z _--

If loading is only being considered to act on one seg-

ment, therefore, the 3' and ~ values for both ends of
this segment may be determined. The gravity stiffness L=11 1'\
deflections for this segment correspond to those of a Segmentsfor
single cable bridge of span l + 3' + ~/in which dead load three-cable span
is only carried over the length l (see Figure 5). Figure 8 Graph of gravity stiffness deflection under concen-
Let segment j of such a bridge be subject to a concen- trated load for three- and two-cable spans having piecewise para-
trated load P applied at distances z and :~ from the left- bolic cables

Eng. Struct. 1987,Vol. 9,April 87

Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings
Also, the change in slope of the deflection curx, c at (i
must equal the change in slope of the v curvc which
is P/H. Thus:

P P _ 4)(y+)')__ 4 &5, +-9) + -a+ ,~ (31)

H z g v ~

Hence:
a
H8 z3(y + 3y) + y3y(fi:~ + 2-9)
(32)
P [:[r- + 4l(v + ~ + 12v~]
i /
~W which may be used to compute the gravity stiffness de-
I flection under a concentrated load as it moves across
W2
~___~ the span of a multicable bridge with piecewise parabolic
cable profiles.
Figure 7 shows gravity stiffness deflections computed
, L
using equations (30) and (32) for a three-cable span
b
in which lj : l2 : 13 = 4 : 3 : 4, subject to a concentrated load
b a t x / L = 5/11.
Figure 8 shows the graph of deflection under a concen-
trated load as it passes across the bridge taking account
of gravity stiffness only. In general, deflections are
! % reduced in magnitude by factors of between 1/2 and
/----7 1/3, as compared with those for the equivalent classical
span. The ratio ll/l 2 (assuming that II = 13) can be used
to modify the structural characteristics. The most appro-
lection - v priate value for this ratio will depend on what property
it is most important to optimize. Since the deflection
diagram for a concentrated load acting at a point is also
the influence line for deflection at that point, it can be
i 0 -x ~ L deduced by inspection of Figure 7 that the effect of mov-
5 ing from a classical to the multicable configuration is
C even more beneficial when considering deflections due
Figure 9 Two-cable s p a n with cubic profiles for cables: (a) geo- to distributed loads. However, deflection theory is
m e t r y a n d i m p o s e d load; (b) d e a d load distribution; (c) gravity unlikely to give simple analytical expressions for the
stiffness deflection d u e to c o n c e n t r a t e d load largest gravity stiffness deflections due to distributed
loads acting on multicable spans. Figure 8 also shows
the deflections under a concentrated load acting on a
and right-hand ends of the segment respectively, and two cable bridge having piecewise parabolic cable pro-
let y = z + y and y = g + ? . The subscript j will be files with Ii = 12 = El2. In this case, the deflections are
deleted throughout. In the deflection diagram, Figure similar to those of a classical span if the loading acts
6, let 4~ and & be the angles E A G and FCG, respec- at centre span. In general, similar deflections will arise
tively. The condition that the curvature of E M G equals in every case of symmetric loading. Reduced deflec-
that of G N F gives: tions, however, are obtained for asymmetric loading
cases.
(28)
z2 22 Cubic cable profiles
A simple non-segmented configuration is a two-cable
The area of H J L G K must equal the sum of the areas bridge in which dead load applied to each cable varies
of E M G K and G N F L in order to satisfy the V = 0 condi- linearly with spanwise distance according to:

tion. Hence, if 8 is the deflection under the concentrated

w # L _ x)
load: w~ = -2 + 2 ( 5

1 2y ~ a-- 6 ( y + 3 v ) + (y+3-9)
w2= 2
(29)

By substituting equation (28) into equation (29): where ~ < w (see Figure 9). In this case, the cables have
a cubic profile when the bridge does not carry imposed
0.9 3(2/yy -- z237 -- z 2 y ) 8 load. Since H1 = H2 = H/2, the change in hanger load
(30)
Z2 z-2 Z 337(y + 3y) + z3y(35 + 3"9) per unit span obtained from equation (9) is:

88 Eng.Struct. 1987,Vol. 9,April

 Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings

=w + 2~ (L ) l[w+~ w-;] [Vt]=mLFh, ] (41,

s ~(hl+h2) ~--~\-~-x (hi-h2) (34)
2 w-~ w+ V2 EALh2J

Thus, the displacement F satisfying equation (23) is a

cubic. With ui ~ ui--- 0, the cable compatibility condi- HLw - ~
w-;]
w+
Ehl] _-
h2
[s,]S2
(42)

tions from equation (16) give:

Hence:
fL wjvdx =
ILw2vdx = 0 (35)
Vl + V2 = H2fL (Sl + $2) (43)
2EA w2
Substituting for w 1 and w2 and adding and subtracting //%
these equations gives:
VI - V2 = 2EA~-----5 (sl - $2) (44)

f L wvds = 0 For the case where a concentrated load is applied

o at x =/3, the total area under the deflection curve is:

P/3/3 L3
f,i(L-x)vdx=0 (36) V1 -t--V2 - 2--H 24H (S1 -4-$2) (45)

(The area and moment of area of the deflection diagram and also:
must be zero.)
If a concentrated load is applied at x =/3, the cubic P/3(fl-/3) L3
displacement ~ satisfying the end conditions and equa- V1 - V2 - 4H 96H (Sl - s2) (46)
tions (36) with the correct function is:
Hence, by using equations (43) and (44):
V= 3(L - x)xd + 1 0 ( f i - / 3 ) ( L / 2 - x)(L - x)xd
L2 L4 12H3fL I
L -I E A w 2 j (s 1 -t'- $2) = 12Pflfl (47)
(37)
where d is the peak value of 0 (Figure 9). The deflection
6 under the concentrated load is obtained by substituting ( 48HBfLI
x =/3 in equation (37) and subtracting this from d to L3q ~ / (Sl - s2) = 24P/3(fi-/3) (48)
give:
The deflection under the concentrated load, however,
- 1- 3q ., (38) is given by:

This equation has been used to obtain the comparison 6 - P/3fiH~ ~--~
(st/3/3 + s2) /3(/38__..._H~-/3)
(st - s2) (49)
shown in Figure 10.
Substituting for sl + s 2 and s~ - s2 from equations (47)
Single span with cable extensibility included and (48) gives:
Whereas the ratio ~ / w does not affect the gravity stiff-
ness deflections provided that ~ > 0, it has an important Ht~ tiff 3afl2/32 31.'f12(l~--/3) 2
influence on the effects of cable extensibility. This is PL L2 L4 L4
(50)
particularly true when ~ tends to zero, for then the
changes in cable tension arising from an imposed load where:
tend to infinity. Because the equations including extensi-
bility are more complex, only the case of a symmetric 1 12H3f 1 48H3f
two cable bridge with piecewise parabolic cables will -= 1~ -= 1 -~ (51)
a EALZw 2 u EAL2i~ 2
be considered. Again, it will be assumed that there is
no movement of the towers. With no temperature
In this equation, the first two terms are correct for a
effects, equation (15) gives, for each cable:
classical configuration, whilst the third term gives the
1 fL
o
wivdx = fihi
--
EAi
L (39)
improvement obtained through using the two-cable con-
figuration. Where H = 182700 kN, E = 207 GN m -2, A
= 0.3224 m 2, L -- 990m, and w -- 123 kN m -1 (as per the
main span of the Severn bridge, 13 then f = 1.0555, a
From symmetry, however, H I = H 2 = H / 2 , AI=A 2 = 0.9276 and for ~ = w, v = 0.7621. Figure 11 shows
= A/2, and fl =f2 =f- Hence: the effect of using different ffffw ratios. Although ~ / w
ratios close to one are likely to be impractical, for 0.4w
=filL < ~ < 0.6w significant reductions in deflection can be
fL wivdx hi (40)
o EA obtained as compared with the classical configuration
represented by ~ / w = O.
The equivalent of equations (18) and (20) are: If d is the dip at centre span, 8Hd = wL 2. Hence:

Eng. Struct. 1987, Vol. 9,April 89

Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. dennings

0.08 A method of restraining movement of the tower tops

is to festoon two (or more) cables over each of the sus-
pended spans as shown in Figure 1(1). In this casc, if
~J
0.06 extensibility of the cables is ignored, the compatibility
~ equations for two parabolic cables supporting the same
span yield:
0.04
WI *l W2
0.02 --- vdx= -- v,lr (53)
u-a= HI ,} H2jo
0 i i i i However, since d2yl/dX 2 @ d2y2/dx 2, then w,/H~ 4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 w2/H2 and eqation (51) reduces to:
~3/L
u- 0= 0 (54)
Figure 10 Deflection under concentrated load for different span
configurations: (---) classical; ( ) cubic; (---)two-cable piece- Hence, if only gravity stiffness effects are considered,
wise parabolic festooning all of the supported spans as shown in Figure
12(a) has the effect of making the bridge act as though
the tower tops are fully restrained. The gravity stiffness
deflections for concentrated and distributed loads shown
Including cable Gravity stiffness on Figures 12(b) and (c) have been obtained from
extensibility only Figures 3 and 6 in reference 8 using a values of 1 and
0.333.
-=0 Cable extensibitity effects are, however, important.
/'W
/2 / 0.2 Consider the case of a span supported by two cables
0.08 ~ .,/ //~-'~4 Classical\ such that A I = A z = A / 2 and HI=H2=H/2. Also,
assume that fi =f2 =f and cl = c2 = c. With dead load
-.a 0.06 \\ applied to the two cables such that Wl = } ( w + v~)
~0__.~__7~".-"~' " ~"" Two-cable
and w2=(w - if), the compatibility equations (15)
~0.04 for each cable, when added and subtracted, yield,
1.0 ~ respectively:
0.02
0 i l I i w f L vdx +fLh + cOtL (55)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 u-a=-~ {} EA
ML
Figure 11 Deflection under concentrated load for two-cable (l. fL(hl - h 9
span with and without cable extensibility (cables have piecewise vdx ~ (56)
parabolic profiles) 0=-~ J II EA

By using equations (9), (21) and (23) and integrating

fCdx across the span, it can be shown that:
1 1+ crH IL IC L3
a 16 \ d ! E vdx= 9dx-12H2[Wh + ff~(hl - h2)] (57)
I} {1
3 20"H Eliminating Jvdx and (hi - h2) from the last three equa-
1 1+ v~2 (52)
u 4 E tions gives:

w fL ( f L L3w2'\__
where o-H = H/A is the dead load stress in, the cables = - fdx+ +~)h+cOtL
u- u- Hr# , EA
where they are horizontal. Therefore, cable extensibility
effects become less important if Lid or ~n/E are (58)
reduced.
where:

Festooning cables for multispan bridges v~2L2EA

~/= 1 + - - (59)
Where a suspension bridge has two or more equal or 12H3f
nearly equal spans, there is a tendency for loads acting
on one span to pull the cable inwards towards the loaded If a bridge consists of several festooned spans with
span. Unless the towers are very stiff they do not re- the cables firmly anchored at the ends:
strain the longitudinal m o v e m e n t s of the cable. In such
cases, the deflection under a concentrated load is x(~j - os) = 0 (6o)
likely to be between two and three times as large as
for the same bridge with tower tops adequately re- where subscript j refers to the span number.
strained, m For distributed loads the factors are larger If, also, it is assumed that the towers offer no resis-
still. tance to horizontal movements of the cables, h i = h.

90 Eng. Struct. 1987,Vol. 9 , A p r i l

 Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings

Including cable Gravity stiffness

extensibility only

0.2 -0
/ ''1 "~q/0,2 //1 "',\ /// "~. Classical

Z
If---'--"-Q4,/o
)~ ~1'o / / "
4 Z_~i
II
\
\ /
/
Festooned
\\/
\
0.1 I ,, , / ,,,

' .......:...... V---i!Y V

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
V
2.5 3.0
x/L
b
Including cable Gravity stiffness
extensibility only

-- = 0 '1
0.08
f f/"~
\ / 02 / / kf
A/ " " \ / x

0.04
I
/,/ "~/~,/"'/ . / 10 1 "
!
\
' ,
/
Festooned
\
\
i~..---It \ I / \
,, ~1 X
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
x/L
C
Figure 12 Use of festooning to increase stiffness of bridge with three equal spans: (a) cable profiles for w / ~ = 0.4; (b) deflection
under concentrated load; (c) maximum deflections at different spanwise positions due to distributed loads of magnitude ~,

Hence: r/= 1 + 12.811#2/~ 2

Y~(fiLj + L3w2 l h o~= 1 - i / r / + 1/(3"0 + 0.07806r/2)

\EA 12H3rljJ (61)
The a values computed for different values of # / w
may be used to compute, not only deflections under
= odx - "ZcjOtLj
concentrated loads, but also maximum deflections for
J
distributed loads since the relevant formulae in refer-
from which the total change in cable tension can be ence 10 apply to the above analysis also. In the compu-
computed. When a concentrated load, P is applied at tation of maximum deflections due to a distributed load,
coordinate/3 to a particular span, the deflection under the influence line for the deflection at each spanwise
the load is found to be: coordinate is used to determine the worst position for
the distributed load. The results are shown in Figure
12, in which it is seen that a ratio of # / w as high as
0.4 is required before good stiffness properties are
where: obtained. The results quoted here are modified very
little if the outer towers are supported by straight back-
1 L3 stays to rigid anchorages.
a = 1- - + (62)
~/ 12H3T/2~Lj + r/2 Lj3
EA w 2 71j
Here, L and 7/ refer to the loaded span. A bridge of X-profiled cables for multispan bridges
total length 2970 m consisting of three equal spans hav- An alternative method of restraining movement of the
ing the parameters quoted in the previous section has: tower tops in a multispan bridge is to use the x-profile

Eng. Struct. 1987,Vol. 9,April 91

Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings
U2 ll3

a rL\1
0.2 - Including cable ~. Gravity stiffness only
extensibility |~"~ \ //~'~"'~ \ f Classical
.,,4 ii \. / \
- [ I k / x-profile \
0.1

b 0 / , V il V , \
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
x/L
Gravity stiffness only
0.08
c,l
i'~'\ //~'~\\X~- Classical
Including cable \\ // \
extensibility \ / \
\ l \
0.04
i \ / x-profile

C 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
x/L
Figure 13 Use of x-profiles to increase stiffness of bridge with three equal spans: (a) cable profiles; (b) deflection under concentrated
load; (c) maximum deflections due to distributed loads of magnitude ~'

shown in Figure 1 (e). In this case, the lower cable sup- so a value h i may be assigned to both cables meeting
port points and the tops of the outer towers need to at a particular tower top.
be restrained as shown in Figure 13(a). If gravity stiffness For a three-cable bridge with identical span configur-
only is taken into account and the cables have a para- ations, the variables will be as shown in Figure 13(a).
bolic profile, it can be shown that the tower tops are Since, for span i:
all fully restrained thus leading to the same improve-
ment in stiffness compared with the classical configu-
ration as was obtained by festooning. For the analysis
f wL 3
i ~dx = I-~'-H-~2(hi + hi+l) (63)
including cable extensibility, it is necessary to allocate
horizontal displacement variables u i at each tower top.
Also, it will be assumed that the towers themselves do equation (15), when applied to each of the six cables
not restrain horizontal movements of the cables and in turn, yields:

u2 u3

Including cable extensibility Gravity stiffness only

0.121-- ~= j0 ~ ---41 ~-~,,
0 (classical)

0 (profiled)

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

b x/L
Figure 14 Bridge with hung sidespans: (a) cable profiles for ~/w = 0.4; (b) deflection under concentrated load

92 Eng.Struct. 1987, Vol. 9,April

 Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. Jennings
account has to be taken of the fact that, unlike for the
I 12H2( festooned configuration, when the left-hand span is
2r)hl+h2=--W-~-JlO& loaded the right-hand span deflects downwards. Hence,
1J (1 + the worst deflections due to distributed loads are
span / 12H2( 12H 3 obtained by using the above a value with equation (26)
[hi+ (l+2r)h2=-7-~3J10~+75-~u2 of reference 10 but also adding the deflections due to
load acting on the whole of the right-hand span.
It can be shown that, for loading on the right-hand
= 12H2 ( 12H 3 span only:
(1 + 2r)h 2 + h3 wL3 J2 - u2

span 2 f r
Odx = - (1 + r)(1 +4r)(2 + 4r) f 3 Odx (69)

12H2 ( 12H 3
\ h 2 + (1 + 2r)h3 = ~ J 2 17dx q- w----~L3u3 From which the deflection 8' of a point x =/3 on the
left-hand span is given by:

H~' r /3fi
12H 3 (70)
[ (1 + 2r)h 3 + h4 = w2L3 u3 @L2 (1 + r)(1 + 4r)(3 + 47") 2L 2
span 3 This method has been used to obtain the left-hand span
/ (64)
curves in Figure 13. From Figures 12 and 13 it is apparent
\ h 3 + (1 + 2r)h 4 = 0
where: that either festooned or x-profiled cables have consider-
able stiffness benefits. Furthermore, it would be possible
12H3f to use other configurations which have similar effects,
r = w2L2E~ (65) such as in Figures 1 (g) and (h).

It has been assumed here that the third span is not
loaded, that there is no change of temperature, Ai
= A / 2 , Hi = 1-1/2, and wi = w/2. Solving these equations
for a load acting on the centre span only gives:
f 2 vdx = ~wL3 (h2 + h3)
_ 1 + 2r ( 0dx
(l+z)(l+4r) J2
and, hence:
l+2r
a = (1 + r)(1 + 4r)
is the reduction factor in ff caused by cable extensibility
effects.
With span parameters similar to those quoted in a
previous section, except for f = 1.0972, then 7 = 0.08114
and a = 0.8116. (The value o f f has been calculated for
the case where the lowest points of the cables occur
at the 1/4 and 3/4 span positions.) This value of a has
been used to compute the centre span curves including
cable extensibility in Figure 13. If the left-hand span
only is loaded, solution of equations (64) gives:
Configuration with hung sidespans
In the case where a bridge has one mainspan and two
much shorter sidespans, greater stiffness against asym-
metric loads acting on the main span can be obtained
by using piecewise parabolic or cubic profiled cables
for the main span. There is no improvement in stiffness,
however, for loads applied to the sidespans or for sym-
metric loads applied to the mainspan. Whereas it is of
negligible benefit to use one of these cable configur-
(66)
ations on the sidespans, it is of benefit to festoon the
sidespan cables. This has the effect of restraining move-
ment of the tower tops which increases the stiffness of
the bridge for sidespan and symmetric mainspan loading
cases.
Consider a bridge which has piecewise parabolic
(67) cables for the main span and festooned cables having
the same ff/w ratio for the sidespans. Let the spans
be L~, L 2 and L 3 and let the tower top displacements
be u2 and u3 (see Figure 14(a)). The compatibility equa-
tions for the main span cables are:
f 2f2hlL
_ 2 + c20tL2
U3 -- U2 = -- fi2 2 WlVdX+ _ EA (71)
2 f w2vdx+ 2f2h2L 2 + c20tL2
u 3 - u2= - - H 2 EA

f wL 3 where integration is over span 2. From the sum of these

1 ~dx = ~ (hi + h2) equations, since w = w 1+ w2 and h = h~ + h2:

w
_ 3 + 14r + 12r 2 ( 0dx fl vdx +f2hL: + cxOtL2 (72)
(68) u3 - u2 = - ~1 j: EA
(1 + r)(1 + 47)(3 + 4r) )1
This is similar to equation (58) for a festooned span
and, hence, for the example, a = 0.8853. but with "O= 1. Hence, equation (61) can be used to
Although this value of a may be used to compute determine h.
the deflection under a concentrated load, in the compu- For the case where a concentrated load acts on a side-
tation of maximum deflections due to distributed load, span, the deflection under the load may be obtained

Eng.Struct. 1987,Vol. 9,April 93

Cable profiles for suspension bridges: A. dennings
by using the a value given by equation (62). For a bridge
with mainspan parameters as given in a previous section
and sidespans of length Lj = L~ = L2/2, the r/ and a
values for the sidespans are:
r/~ = 1 + 3.2028 ~2/w -~
a~ = 1 - 1/'r/~ + 1/(2"r/~ + 9.249r/~) (73)
from which the sidespan deflections in Figure 14(b) have
been computed. When the main span is loaded, the
value of a obtained from equation (62) is such that:
1 12H ~ 1 L)~
%,- EAL SwZE;L/ + -~sE
: 1.1657 + 0.25/r/~ (74)
Equations (43), (45) and (47) for symmetric compo-
nents of displacements are modified by including tower
movements, but equations (44), (46) and (48) for anti-
symmetric displacements are not affected. It is found
that equation (50) is still valid for the deflections under
a concentrated load provided that the value of am given
above replaces the value of a for the single span bridge
computed from the first of equations (51). This method
has been used to compute the main span deflections
in Figure 14(b).
Comparison of the left and right-hand parts of Figure
14(b) shows that cable extensibility effects reduce the
benefits to be gained from profiling the cables. For #/w
values in the interval 0.4-0.6 (which should be practi-
cal), however, there is still a significant benefit remain-
ing. The deflections due to distributed loads will show
greater reduction factors.
Effect of deck bending stiffness
It has been shown ~ that for a suspension bridge with
parabolic cables and light deck girder (EI/HL 2 small),
the deck bending moment under a concentrated load
is approximately:
P(EI/H)'. '2
except where the load is placed close to the end of the
span in which case the bending moment will tend to
zero if there is a pinned support. This bending moment
arises because the beam resists the sudden change in
slope of magnitude P/H which would otherwise occur
at the load. Since the same change of slope occurs for
multicable as well as classical forms of suspension bridge
without a deck girder, it may be deduced that the maxi-
mum deck bending moments will not be altered very
much by moving from classical to multicable profiles.
Deck bending stiffness also has an effect on deck de-
flections. The deflection under a concentrated load is
reduced by approximately:
~P(E1/HS)I/2
This reduction will also take place for multicable confi-
gurations provided that EUHL 2 is small. Because de-
flections are normally lower than for classical
configurations, the proportionate effects of introducing
the deck girder is likely to be greater. For a bridge with
94 Eng. Struct. 1987,Vol. 9,April
main span parameters as specified previously, the effect
of introducing a deck having a bending stiffness /5/
= 1509 m2 would be to reduce H6/PL by approximately
0.019, where the concentrated load is not acting close
to the ends of a span.
The structural behaviour of multicable bridges has
also been investigated using a computer program and
model experiments t4 which have been in fairly close
agreement with the analytical results quoted in this
paper.
Conclusions
Various multicable configurations have been analysed
by an extended deflection theory and it has been shown
that significant increases in stiffness can be obtained as
compared with classical bridges having parabolic pro-
files for the cables. Cable extensibility has a greater
effect on stiffness for these bridges than it has for classi-
cal forms of bridge. The improved stiffness results in
reduced deflections under concentrated loads and sub-
stantially reduced deflections for distributed loading
cases.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr W. C. Brown, Dr
R. N. McKay and B. J. Chestnutt, who have all contri-
buted substantially to the investigation of multicable
suspension bridge characteristics. Funding has been
through Freeman, Fox and Partners and the Science
and Engineering Research Council. The paper was writ-
ten at Chalmers University, Gothenburg whilst funded
by the Swedish NFR.
References
I Melan, J. Theorie der eisernen Bogenbrucken und der Hanger-
brucken, Handbuch der Ingenieurwissenschaften, Leipzig, 2nd edn.
1888, 3rd edn., 1906
2 Steinman, D.B. A practical treatise on suspension bridges, John
Wile),, Chichester
3 Pugsley, A. The theory of suspension bridges, Edward Arnold,
2nd edn., 1968
4 Brotton, D.M. A general computer program for the solution of
suspension bridge problems, Struct. Eng., 1966, 44, 161-167
5 Saafan, S.A. Theoretical analysis of suspension bridges, J. Stru~t
Div. ASCE, 1966, 92 (ST4), 1-11
6 Tezcan, S.S. Stiffness analysis of suspension bridges by iteration,
Symp. Suspension Bridges, Lisbon, Portugal, November, 1966
7 Jennings, A. and Mairs, J.E. Static analysis of suspension bridges,
J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 98 (Stll), November 1972, 2433-2454
8 Irvine, H.M. Cable structures, MlTPress, Cambridge, Massachu-
setts
9 Gimsing, N.J. Cable-supported bridges, John Wiley, Chichester,
1983
10 Jeonings, A. Gravity stiffness of classical suspension bridges, J.
8truct. Eng., ASCE, 1983, 109 (1), 16-36
I 1 Mao, Y. Bridges in China, old and new, Foreign Languages Press.
Peking, 1978
12 Jennings, A. Formulae for parabolic suspension cables. Dept.
Cir. Eng. Rep., Queen's Univ., Belfast, 1986
13 Roberts, G., Gowring, G.I.B., Hardie, A. and Hyatt, K.E. Severn
Bridge, Proc. ICE, 1968, 41,pp 1-104 (Repr. 1970)
14 McKay, R.N. Structural characteristics of multicable suspension
bridge configurations, Ph.D. Diss., Queen's University, Belfast, UK.
1982