Influence of Deck Longitudinal Prestressing

on Cable-Stayed Bridges
Mohamed Hasan, Asst. Lecturer; Arab Academy For Science, Technology And Maritime Transport—Construction and Building
Dept., Aswan, Egypt; Eehab Khalil, Assoc. Prof., Construction Research Institute National Water Research Center—Structural
Dept., Cairo, Egypt; Walid Attia, Prof.; Akram Turkey, Prof.; Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University—Structural Dept., Giza,
Egypt. Contact: m.shakour@aast.edu
DOI: 10.2749/101686615X14210663188817

Abstract and a central cable plane combined

with a box-shaped deck, constructed
In prestressed concrete (PC) cable-stayed bridges, the accuracy of calculating the partially of prefabricated elements.
cable initial force and its iterations for dead load zero deflection criteria depends Sunshine Skyway bridge, USA, with
on several variables. The combination of deck tendon longitudinal configura- a 366 m main span was designed on
tion, deck vertical profile, rigid pylon–deck connectivity and elastomeric bearings the principles initially presented in
supporting the deck is a unique one that influences cable force distribution in Brotonne bridge.3 This system was
this type of bridge. This structural assembly is presented in two three-dimen- recommended instead of an alterna-
sional (3D) finite element models. A lumped-sum main girder (spine model) and tive one of a composite deck with two
a detailed 3D shell element model are introduced. The mutual effects of cable cable planes along the roadway edges.4
forces and deck longitudinal prestressing are investigated implementing two Similar design features were adopted
different boundary conditions. The study clarifies the degree of contribution of in Centennial (second Panama) bridge
deck longitudinal prestressing in reducing the quantity of stay cables. It improves with a 420 m crossing span.
bridge global performance with the contribution of transverse and inverted V
prestressing from the upper to the lower flanges of the deck. Bridge structural systems vary accord-
ing to the connectivity between deck,
Keywords: cable-stayed bridges; prestressing degree; cable tension; pylon–deck pylon upper portion and pylon lower
connection; elastomeric bearings. portion (pier). Cable-stayed bridges
with pylons rigidly connected to the
decks have a high-strength capacity
under ultimate loads.5 There is a lack
Introduction parameters of cable-stayed bridge ele- of studies related to such types of PC
ments on the overall structural behav- cable-stayed bridges.
Both cable-stayed bridges and con- iour of the bridge.2 The permanent state of stress in a
tinuous girder bridges have their own
The combination of a central cable cable-stayed bridge subjected to dead
definite behaviour with respect to
plane with a prestressed concrete (PC) loads is determined by tension forces
superimposed loads. In the case of con-
box-girder and pylons is an economical in the cables, which are quantified so
tinuous girders, the geometric require-
and aesthetically acceptable solution that bending moments in girders and
ments at the supports are costly.
for short and medium span bridges. pylons are reduced to the least pos-
Introducing a cable-stayed supporting
In multi-stay bridges, closely spaced sible. There are different methods to
system reduces such requirements at
cables support the whole length of the determine initial forces in stay cables,
the supports without any major loss
deck approaching the pylons in order such as simply supported beam,6
in stiffness for the main span. It is cus-
to avoid large negative moments and continuous beam on rigid supports7
tomary to have a continuous pylon for
stiff bearings at the pylons. Normally, a and optimization technique.8 A new
cable-stayed bridges as a support for
bridge is supported by two cable planes method of force equilibrium was pre-
the deck. When introducing intermedi-
along the deck edges. In some medium sented to determine the optimum ini-
ate bearings into the pylon, the global
span bridges, one plane of the cables tial cable forces in a PC cable-stayed
behaviour of such a hybrid bridge
is used along the deck centerline for a bridge for a given deck profile under
system requires extensive analysis, as
slender aesthetic single pylon. A box- its dead load with deck prestressing.
shown later.
girder with sufficient torsional rigidity The proposed method achieved deck
The interaction between cables, girder is required to achieve bridge stability bending moments approaching a con-
and pylons is discussed in a compre- under wind and unsymmetrical loads. tinuous beam behaviour rather than a
hensive parametric study.1 A model is Such a girder must be rigidly sup- large-span simply supported one.9
proposed to examine the influence of ported at the pylons to resist twisting The method of a continuous beam
geometrical, mechanical and physical moments and as such stay cables may on rigid supports is a suitable design
be connected further away from the method for PC cable-stayed bridges
pylons, leaving an unsupported deck because the redistribution of internal
Peer-reviewed by international ex- length. forces caused by concrete creep can
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board The application of a multi-cable sys- be reduced. In practical engineer-
tem in a PC cable-stayed bridge was ing applications, the choice of any of
Paper received: October 15, 2014 first introduced in Brotonne bridge, the above methods is dependent on
Paper accepted: April 9, 2015 France, with a main span of 320 m designer preference and experience.10

292 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2015

The structural deformations and inter-
nal forces are calculated after min-
ute changes in forces are applied for
every cable. The vectoral changes in
deformations and internal forces are
defined as influence vectors. The influ-
ence matrices of cable forces can be
formed where the governing equations
compose a solvable standard linear
programming problem.
Deck Prestressing
in Cable-Stayed Bridges
Cable tensions cause compression
along the deck. It is necessary to
understand the distribution of bend-
ing moments and compression forces
along the deck to determine the criti-
cal sections that need longitudinal
prestressing (see Fig. 1). Deck com-
pression forces increase gradually
from mid-main-span and, conversely,
Desired moment due to dead load
Envelope of bending
moments due to live load
MDL + LL
Axial compression
Zones require prestressing
Fig. 1: Straining actions of conventional cable-stayed bridges with concrete deck sections
48.83 76.17
17.58
51.7
21.2
Continuity Cantilever tendons
tendons
Fig. 2: Schematic diagram showing the general configuration of deck prestressing tendons at the Aswan Bridge example (unit: m)
Structural Engineering International 3/2015
from the end of the side-span to
reach their maximum at the pylons.
Unfavourable moments are formed
under unsymmetrical live loads and
concentrated vehicle loads along the
deck.11 The most critical segments are
at mid-main-span and at the end of
the side-span because these sections
are subjected to tensile stresses under
live load cases. Full longitudinal pre-
stressing is needed only over a certain
length in mid-main-span with cables
running along both edges of the deck.
Sections near the pylons are highly
compressed and do not need addi-
tional prestressing while some pre-
stressing is required for sections at the
end of the side-span.
The degree of prestressing is usually
determined on the basis of the service-
ability limit state according to various
design standards. Tendons are placed in
the top and bottom slabs, bounded or
500.0
250.0
13 × 7.81 m
8 × 2.0 m
5 × 2.5 m
20.8
External
Internal
Continuity
tendons
unbounded. Box-girder bridges hung
up by a central row of cables require
additional longitudinal prestressing
because the stiffness of such girders
causes more straining moments.
Transverse prestressing is required
to reduce section dimensions for the
existing large transverse bending
moments and to counteract relatively
large torsional stresses, especially
towards the pylons.12 A new method-
ology was proposed to determine the
prestressing forces of cables of extra-
dosed bridges in comparison with
those of cable-stayed bridges. Based
on the contribution of stay cables and
concordant prestressing tendons in
reducing the deck bending moments
under dead load, the use of the stay
cables and prestressing materials was
evaluated.13 It has to be noted that
longitudinal prestressing in extradosed
bridges cannot be eliminated.
Main Structural Features
of Aswan Cable-Stayed Bridge
Aswan Bridge belongs to the same
family as the Brotonne and Sunshine
bridges and is a structural system with
a prestressed deck, a rigid pylon–
deck connection and a non-rigid
pier connection. The main cable-
stayed bridge is 500 m long with a
48.83+76.17+250+76.17+48.83 m span
arrangement (Fig. 2).
The cast-in-place segmental deck is
suspended from 14 pairs of stay cables
arranged in a central layer and sup-
ported by two pylons. Parallel strand
cables vary in cross-sectional area from
9900 to 16350 mm2 and have an ulti-
mate tensile strength of 1860 MPa. The
box-girder is of a single cell trapezoi-
dal section 3.3 m high and 24.3 m wide,
with a thin 220 mm top slab. The bridge
has a vertical alignment varying from
3% inclination at both ends, reaching a
horizontal alignment at mid-span. The
76.17 48.83
Cantilever tendons Continuity
tendons
Scientific Paper 293
Aswan cable-stayed bridge has three Large displacement effects play an were determined with the method of
distinct features: important role in instances such as continuous beam on rigid supports
alternate loading in large spans and/or except for tension in the first and last
1. The pylon emerges rigidly from the erection stages, so they were neglected cables where the simply supported
deck and the deck is totally sup- in this study. beam method was adopted because of
ported on elastomeric bearings on the unreasonable force values obtained
The Newton–Raphson iteration method
the two main piers. For the other from the former method.
was employed to solve the equilibrium
four side piers, pot bearings have
equation of the nonlinear system with Cable forces were adjusted to keep the
been implemented (Fig. 3).
40 iterations per step to achieve conver- deck profile almost deflection-free (±3
2. The bridge has one of the widest PC
gence.15 The initial tensions of cables mm) under permanent loads exploiting
decks for a one-plane cable-stayed
bridge,14 where the box-section is
supported by inverted V-struts at 24300
650 650 7500 2500
the cable anchorages (Fig. 3). 2500 7500 1500 1500
3. There are a large number of deck
prestressing cables along 500 m in
various locations (Fig. 2).
(a) Upper and lower continuity 3300
tendons along the main and side
spans.
(b) Cantilever tendons above each
main pier.
(c) External tendons above the
770 900 900 770
lower flange of the box-section
in the main span. 700
(d) Cyclic tendons joining every

E
two consecutive construction
stages. 800 38.66º

E
100
(e) Vertical tie-down tendons fixing R=1870 4043
the deck to the side piers. 400
100 100 5054 5054
Numerical Modelling 2 tendon 13C15
and Analysis E Section of precast strut
Tendon geometry for precast strut

To capture the full behaviour of the

Fig. 3: Main deck cross-sections (unit: mm). Solid section between pylon and pier
deck, plate-membrane (shell) ele- showing elastomeric bearings (top); typical section showing the inverted V-strut and
ments were modelled in comparison tendon (bottom)
to a spine model (deck as one single
frame element) with global stiffness
characteristics similar to those of the Element A (m2) J (m4) Ix (m4) Iy (m4)
true box-girder (Table 1). Many struc- Solid deck section 39.441 108.125 41.387 860.615
tural details that control the solution Typical deck section 14.560 54.000 22.407 530.730
reliability were included in the former
Pylon 14.1 25.959 44.048 12.575
model, such as longitudinal and trans-
Precast strut 0.348
versal distribution of tendons, rigid
pylon–deck connectivity, elastomeric A = cross-sectional area; J = torsion constant; Ix = moment of inertia about x-axis; Iy = moment of
inertia about y-axis
bearings and the inverted V-strut–ten-
don system (Fig. 4). To widen the scope Table 1: Section properties
of the analysis, the mentioned finite
element (FE) model was modified to
represent a common boundary con- Solid section
dition (free pylon–deck connection)
where the pylon is fixed to the ground
and the deck is free to rotate about the
transverse axis, free to translate longi-
tudinally and constrained against ver-
tical translation in comparison to the Elastomeric
model of Aswan Bridge. bearings
Typical
Ernst modulus with actual stress taken section
into consideration under sequential
load cases was adopted for the cable
modelling. P-Delta interaction was
included to reflect the actual behav- Main
Precast strut pier
iour of pylons, deck and precast
inverted V-struts under compression. Fig. 4: Finite element model of bridge components

294 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2015

a nonlinear-static application; then
deformation loads were iteratively
applied (100 iterations per stage) until
the target tension was achieved with
a relative convergence tolerance of
0.002.16 Because of the elastic sup-
ports of the pylons, the cables forces
were adjusted in sight of the value of
vertical movement at the pylons (4
mm) as a guided deflection along the
whole deck. Commonly, the prestress-
ing losses for cables range from 10 to
15%.17 Based on the data presented
in Table 2, both short- and long-term
losses were calculated for longitudi-
nal, transversal and inverted V-tendon
prestressing. The inverted V prestress-
ing resulted in larger losses than
usual (30% in this case study) mainly
because of anchorage slip (short length
of tendon) and friction losses (moder-
ate angle of deviation).Analysis cases
were arranged according to cable ten-
sioning stages to capture the stiffness
matrix after every stage as an initial
condition for the next stage:
• Own weight (including cable ten-
sion, tie-down and inverted V
prestressing).
• Transverse prestressing.
• Longitudinal prestressing.
• Permanent loads (pavement, curbs
and concrete parries).
• Distributed and concentrated live
loads (Egyptian code for load
calculations).
Steel grade
Stress at anchorage
Modulus of elasticity
Strand type
Nominal diameter
Curvatures friction coefficient
Wobble friction coefficient
Anchorage slip
Table 2: Deck prestressing tendons specifications
Methodology
The sophisticated model investigated
the degree of contribution of deck
longitudinal prestressing in saving stay
cables and improving bridge global
performance. First, the bridge was
analysed with the design prestressing
ratio, according to AASHTO LRFD18
and conforming to cracking require-
ments (Table 3). A parametric study
was performed according to ACI 318
taking the design deck prestressing
(100% deck longitudinal prestress-
ing) as a reference value. The effects
of four prestressing ratios (0, 50, 100,
200%) of deck longitudinal prestress-
ing were examined maintaining a
constant transverse, inverted V and
tie-down prestressing with the original
tendon configuration.
Steel quantities of strands in both stay
cables and deck longitudinal tendons
were surveyed for each prestressing
case. In order to avoid inaccuracy in
comparison, cable areas were adjusted
to maintain the same tensile stresses
and, consequently, a constant effec-
tive stiffness of stays in all prestress-
ing cases. Steel quantities of deck
prestressing were proportioned to
cable quantities, as illustrated in Table
4. A cyclic tendon quantity of 64.72 t
was included as a constant in all cases
including non-prestressed decks to ful-
fil segment integrity. It was reasonably
assumed that the cost of the stay cable
1860 MPa
1488 MPa
195 000 MPa
Super - low relax
15.7 mm (150 mm2)
0.05
0.001 (1/m)
0.006 (m)
unit weight triples the deck prestress-
ing tendon unit weight.19
Results and Discussions
The results of two pylon–deck connec-
tion cases with different boundary con-
ditions are discussed. Cable tension,
deck deformations, straining actions
and strand quantity are presented for
a rigid pylon–deck connection case.
Cable forces and strand quantity are
the only mentioned results regarding a
free pylon–deck connection.
First Case: Cable-Stayed Bridge
with Rigid Pylon–Deck Connection
Concerning stay cables at the side span
under dead load effect, and as a result
of increasing deck prestressing from 0
to 200%, both cable groups near the
pylons and those in between the two
side piers show a remarkable decrease
from 4 to 16% in tensile forces with
respect to the deck prestressing ratio.
Cables in the middle of the side span
do not show a clear change in forces
with respect to the change in longitu-
dinal prestressing because this zone
is free of tendons. The cable just adja-
cent to the middle pier is subjected to
a higher tension than the previous and
later cables, as shown in Fig. 5. Tie-
down prestressing tendons connect the
deck to the intermediate piers to resist
an uplift force of 4820 kN in the case
of live loads acting on the main span.
Concerning stay cables at the main
span under dead load effect, tension in
the cables adjacent to the pylons does
not show a clear change in forces with
respect to deck prestressing. This zone
is lightly prestressed. Cables support-
ing the middle third of the main span
show a remarkable decrease in ten-
sile forces (4.5–19%) with respect to
the deck prestressing ratio and cable
location (Fig. 6).

Percentage of Critical section near pylon Critical section at mid-span Type of section Degree of
longitudinal. Case of at mid-span prestressing
prestressing loading Upper fibre Lower fibre Upper fibre Lower fibre ACI 318 AASHTO LRFD
D −6.4 −11.8 −16.3 −9.3
200 Uncracked Full
D+L −3.7 −24.7 −19.4 −3.7
D −5.9 −10.6 −9.7 −6.0
100 Uncracked Full
D+L −3.2 −23.5 −12.8 −0.4
D −5.5 −10.1 −4.8 −2.9
50 Uncracked Partial
D+L −2.0 −21.9 −8.9 +2.3
D −5.2 −9.5 −1.65 −0.44
0 Transition Non prestressed
D+L −1.1 −20.0 −5.2 +5.4
( − ) = compression stress; ( + ) = tensile stress; D = self-weight + superimposed load + prestressing; L = live load at main span.
Table 3: Flexural stresses in box- section under service loads (N/mm2)

Structural Engineering International 3/2015 Scientific Paper 295

The minimum calculated quantity of of 200%, stay cable quantities are A constant deck section along the
strands (stay cable + deck prestress- reduced by 10.23% while total cable bridge is required to avoid construc-
ing tendons) is obtained at zero deck quantities increase by 23.47%. For tion difficulties, but excessive deck
prestressing with minimum cables for 100% and 200% deck prestressing, prestressing would need special provi-
cyclic tendons only. With the imple- there is a negligible increase of 1.08% sions for the lateral stability of the top
mentation of 100% deck prestressing, and 1.9% in the total cost of strands, and bottom slabs. During design activi-
the stay cable quantity decreases only respectively (Table 4). The weight of ties, it is recommended to limit the
by 4.98% (25.6 t), with a noticeable tendons required for 100% deck pre- deck prestressing ratio to the degree
increase of 11.86% in the total cable stressing represents 32.52% of cable that creates a maximum compression
quantities. With a deck prestressing weight and 10.84% of cable cost. force along the bridge less than the
value near the pylons. Deck sections
Initial tension Zero deck prestressing 50% deck prestressing under the effect of 100% longitudinal
100% deck prestressing 200% deck prestressing prestressing are subjected to a semi-
uniform compression force (9565 kN)
9 required to counteract tensile stress
in the sections at mid-span, especially
under live load cases. Under full load,
8 100% deck prestressing causes a negli-
Cable force (MN)

gible reduction of 2.5% in pylon axial

7
forces while the maximum deck axial
force is increased by 10.4% (Fig. 7).
Under dead loads, the bending
6
moment diagram of a non-prestressed
deck reveals an excellent adjustment
5 of tension in cables, where the deck
behaves as if it was continuously sup-
ported with cables. An acceptable
4 moment distribution is reached under
Side span
100% deck prestressing because ten-
Fig. 5: Cable force distribution under dead loads—side span don anchorages were placed at the
segment in between every two con-
secutive cables, as seen along the deck
Initial tension Zero deck prestressing 50% deck prestressing
100% deck prestressing 200% deck prestressing
in Fig. 8. However, sharp transitions
9 are noticed at certain sections along
the moment diagram, mainly sections
X and Y. Every abrupt change in
8 moment reflects a rough curtailment
of tendons along the deck where there
is a reduction of about 10.2 and 20.3%
Cable force (MN)

7 at sections X and Y, respectively.

Although a rigid pylon–deck connec-
6
tion attracts large moments under
different load cases, typical deck sec-
tions adjacent to the pylons do not suf-
5 fer any excessive tensile stresses as a
result of the accumulated compression
forces (Fig. 9).
4 Deck vertical displacement is a result
Main span
of both stay cable effects and deck lon-
Fig. 6: Cable force distribution under dead loads—main span gitudinal prestressing where camber

Total cost
Percentage of Tendons Cables (multiples of cable
longitudinal quantity (t) quantity (t) Weight (%) Cost (%) unit wt. cost)
prestressing Rigid Free Rigid Free Rigid Free Rigid Free Rigid Free
0 64.72 514.73 512.46 12.57 12.63 4.19 4.21 536.3 534.03
50 111.89 502.11 501.07 22.28 22.33 7.43 7.44 539.41 538.37
100 159.06 489.1 32.52 10.84 542.12
200 253.4 462.05 464.25 54.84 54.58 18.28 18.19 546.52 548.72
Rigid: rigid pylon-deck connection case; Free: free pylon-deck connection case; Weight % = tendons quantity / cables quantity; Cost % = 0.33 ×
weight %; Total cost = (cables quantity + 0.33 tendons quantity) ×cost of cable unit wt.
Table 4: Quantity of deck tendons and stay cables

296 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2015

(a) (b)

11425 11098

9863 11005

Axial force under dead loads Axial force under dead loads
Self wt. + superimposed DL Self wt. + 100% deck prestressing + superimposed DL

13200 12874

11460 12658 9565

Axial force under full load

Axial force under full load
Self wt. + 100% deck prestressing + superimposed DL
Self wt. + superimposed DL + LL on main span only
+ LL on main span only
Non prestressed deck Deck with 100% prestressing
Fig. 7: Axial force diagram under main load cases (kN)—half elevation. (a) Non prestressed deck and (b) deck with 100% prestressing

(a) (b)

4745 6694
6030

4413 4676
Y X
Bending moment under self wt. Bending moment under prestressing
Self wt. + 100% deck prestressing

420 815 2474

2939 3193
1340

Y X
Bending moment under dead loads Bending moment under dead loads
Self wt. + superimposed DL Self wt. + 100% deck prestressing + superimposed DL

13094
12853
8131

Y 8342
7160 X
Bending moment under full load Bending moment under full load
Self wt. + superimposed DL Self wt. + 100% deck prestressing + superimposed DL
+ LL on main span only + LL on main span only
Non prestressed deck Deck with 100% prestressing
Fig. 8: Bending moment diagram under main load cases (kN/m.)—half elevation. (a) Non prestressed deck and (b) deck with 100%
prestressing

increases linearly with respect to the of camber caused by stay cables. A loads. Table 5 shows that the deck is
increase in deck prestressing. Under longitudinal prestressing of 100% has subjected to a camber value of 207 mm
200% deck prestressing, a 142 mm a negligible influence on deck deflec- with no effect of superimposed loads
camber is noticed, representing 203% tion after being adjusted under dead and a deflection of 333 mm with live

Structural Engineering International 3/2015 Scientific Paper 297

Percentage Self wt. (camber Longitudinal
of longitudinal caused by cable Transverse prestressing Dead Full load Camber caused by
prestressing tension) prestressing (Total camber) load (D + L) deck prestressing Camber (%)
0 +202 +202 +202 −3 −330 0 –
50 +170 +173 +205 −4 −331 35 20.6
100 +136 +139 +207 −5 −333 71 52.2
200 +70 +73 +212 −6 −337 142 203
(+) = camber; (−) = deflection.
Camber caused by deck prestressing = total camber – camber caused by cable tension.
Camber % = camber caused by deck prestressing / camber caused by cable tension.
Table 5: Vertical displacement at mid-span under different load cases (mm)

load effect. Tension in stay cables and

the overall response of the bridge are
not influenced by transverse prestress-
ing although it improves the deforma-
tion of the upper slab and its cantilever.

Second Case: Cable Stayed Bridge

with Free Pylon–Deck Connection
According to the deck prestress-
Top view ing ratio and cable location, there is
a semi-constant decrease of about
Bottom view 9.96% in cable forces at the side span
and a gradual decrease in cable forces,
–11.0 –10.2 –9.3 –8.5 –7.6 –6.8 –5.9 –5.1 –4.2 –3.4 –2.5 –1.7 –0.8 0.0
reaching 13.3% at the main span, as
seen in Fig. 10.
2
Fig. 9: Normal stresses under dead loads (N/mm )—longitudinal
On implementation of 100% deck
Zero deck prestressing - free deck 200% deck prestressing - free deck prestressing, stay cable quantities
100% deck prestressing - free deck decrease by 4.56% (23.4 t), with a
noticeable increase of 12.3% in the
9 total cable quantities. For 200% deck
prestressing, stay cable quantities are
reduced by 9.4% while total cable
8
quantities show an increase of 24.34%.
Cable force (MN)

It is noticed that at 100 and 200% deck

7 prestressing, the total cost of strands is
negligibly increased by 1.51 and 2.75%,
6 respectively, as shown in Table 4.

5 Conclusions
Two FE models of Aswan cable-stayed
4 bridge were utilized to investigate
Side span the mutual effect between stay cable
forces and deck longitudinal prestress-
Zero deck prestressing - free deck 200% deck prestressing - free deck ing, where all structural details were
100% deck prestressing - free deck
9 properly modelled. The performance
is improved clearly based on results in
Tables 3 and 5. Force distribution along
8 deck in Fig. 7 is completely different
with longitudinal prestressing where
Cable force (MN)

such an increase in compression domi-

7 nates over small increase in moment
(moment increase is due to rough cur-
6
tailment of tendons as explained in
the text). Based on the analysis of the
results, the following conclusions are
5 drawn:

1. The reduction in stay cable forces

4 as a result of increasing deck longi-
Main span
tudinal prestressing depends on the
Fig. 10: Cable force distribution under dead loads (free pylon–deck connection) prestressing degree, cable location

298 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International 3/2015

 and boundary conditions. In the
rigid pylon–deck connection case,
cables between the two side piers
and those opposite to them in the
main span showed a remarkable
decrease in tensile forces (4–19.5%).
Cable forces in the free pylon–deck
connection case have a semi-con-
stant decrease of about 9.96% along
the side span and a clear gradual
decrease reaching 13.3% at the
main span.
2. The total weight of tendons required
according to design (100% deck
prestressing) represents 32.52% of
cable weight and only 10.84% of
cable cost. When duplicating deck
prestressing, the total cost of strands
(deck tendons + cables) was negligi-
bly increased by 1.9 and 2.75% for
rigid and free pylon–deck connec-
tion bridges, respectively. Such an
increase would be compensated by
the expected reduction in deck ordi-
nary reinforcement.
3. The selection of the suitable pre-
stressing degree should be given
due consideration by the designer.
The upper limit in deck prestress-
ing is that which creates a maximum
compression force along the bridge
equal to the value near the pylons in
order to avoid special provisions for
lateral stability that would result in
an uneconomic deck.
4. The design ratio (100% deck pre-
stressing) caused a negligible reduc-
tion of 2.5% in pylon compression
forces while the maximum deck
compression was raised by 10.4%,
which is an accepted increase com-
pared to the stiff deck of a central
plane cable-stayed bridge.
5. Until deck profile is adjusted under
dead loads, longitudinal prestress-
ing shared stay cables in camber-
ing the deck. Camber caused by
deck prestressing ratios 50, 100 and
200% represents (20.6–52.2–203%)
of camber caused by cables. Under
Structural Engineering International 3/2015
live loads (after adjustment), deck
deflection was not influenced by lon-
gitudinal prestressing.
6. Tension in stay cables and the global
response of the bridge are not influ-
enced by transverse prestressing
although it improves the degree of
deformation of the upper slab and
enhances stress distribution across
the deck.
A higher degree of prestressing is
required for precast deck segments to
avoid partial opening of joints under
the ultimate limit state, especially if
unbounded external tendons are used.
A supplementary study is required to
investigate the role of deck prestress-
ing under cable loss. It is recommended
to implement deck prestressing to
improve the global performance of
small and medium span cable-stayed
bridges and to study its efficiency in
the case of longer spans using high-
performance materials.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to members of the Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
team and General Authority of Roadways
and Bridges in Egypt for providing the as-
built drawings and for help during the inspec-
tion and investigation.
References
[1] Straupe V, Paeglitis A. Analysis of interaction
between the elements in a cable-stayed bridge.
Balt. J. Road Bridge Eng. 2012; 7(2): 84–91.
[2] Straupe V, Paeglitis A. Analysis of geometri-
cal and mechanical properties of a cable-stayed
bridge. Procedia Eng. 2013; 57: 1086–1093.
[3] Troitsky MS. Cable-Stayed Bridges, Theory
and Design, 2nd edn. BSP Professional Books:
London, 1988.
[4] Gimsing NJ, Georgakis CT. Cable-Supported
Bridges, Concept and Design, 3rd edn. Technical
University of Denmark: Denmark, 2012.
[5] Xi Z, Xi Y, Xiong H. Ultimate load capacity
of cable-stayed bridges with different deck and
pylon connections. J. Bridge Eng. ASCE 2014; 19:
15–33.
[6] Podolny W, Scalmi J. Construction and Design
of Cable-Stayed Bridges. John Wiley & Sons:
New York, 1983.
[7] Walther R, Houriet B, Lsler W, Moia P. Cable-
Stayed Bridges. Thomas Telford: London, 1988.
[8] Kim JC, Chang SP. Determination of initial
shape and fabrication camber for cable-stayed
bridges using initial member force. Korean Soc.
Civil Eng. 1999; 19(1–3): 377–386.
[9] Chen DW, Au FTK, Tham LG, Lee PKK.
Determination of initial cable forces in pre-
stressed concrete cable-stayed bridges for given
design deck profiles using the force equilibrium
method. Comput. Struct. 2000; 74: 1–9.
[10] Han DJ, Yan Q. Cable force adjustment
and construction control. In Bridge Engineering
Handbook, Chen WF, Duan L (eds). CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, 2000; pp. 1539–1542.
[11] Svensson H. Cable-Stayed Bridges/40 Years
Experience Worldwide. Ernst & Sohn: Berlin,
2012.
[12] Leonhardt F. Cable-stayed bridges with pre-
stressed concrete. PCI J. 1987; 32(5): 8–28.
[13] El Shenawy EA. Form Finding for Cable-
Stayed and Extradosed Bridges. Berlin Technical
University: Berlin, 2013.
[14] Bakhoum MM. Bridge engineering in
Egypt. In Handbook of International Bridge
Engineering, Chen WF, Duan L (eds). CRC
Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2014; pp. 1161–1207.
[15] Computers and Structures Inc. Analysis
Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS and
SAFE. Computers and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley,
CA, 2009.
[16] Karoumi R. Some modeling aspects in the non-
linear finite element analysis of cable-supported
bridges. Comput. Struct. 1999; 71: 397–412.
[17] Guiglia M, Taliano M. Experimental analy-
sis of the effective pre-stress in large-span bridge
box-girders after 40 years of service life. Eng.
Struct. 2014; 66: 146–158.
[18] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 5th edn. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
Washington, DC, 2010.
[19] Benaim R. The Design of Prestressed
Concrete Bridges, Concepts and Principles.
Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, 2008.
Scientific Paper 299