J2007-Estimation of Cable Safety Factors

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

Published online 7 November 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nme.1928
Estimation of cable safety factors of suspension bridges using

artificial neural network-based inverse reliability method
Jin Cheng1, , , C. S. Cai2 and Ru-Cheng Xiao1
1 Department
2 Department
of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3418H CEBA, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA 70803, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
The design of the main cables of suspension bridges is based on the verification of the rules defined by
standard specifications, where cable safety factors are introduced to ensure safety. However, the current
bridge design standards have been developed to ensure structural safety by defining a target reliability
index. In other words, the structural reliability level is specified as a target to be satisfied by the designer.
Thus, calibration of cable safety factors is needed to guarantee the specified reliability of main cables.
This study proposes an efficient and accurate algorithm to solve the calibration problem of cable safety
factors of suspension bridges. Uncertainties of the structure and load parameters are incorporated in
the calculation model. The proposed algorithm integrates the concepts of the inverse reliability method,
non-linear finite element method, and artificial neural networks method. The accuracy and efficiency of
this method with reference to an example long-span suspension bridge are studied and numerical results
have validated its superiority over the conventional deterministic method or inverse reliability method
with Gimsings simplified approach. Finally, some important parameters in the proposed method are also
discussed. Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 28 February 2006; Revised 27 September 2006; Accepted 3 October 2006
KEY WORDS:
inverse reliability method; cable safety factor; suspension bridges; target reliability index;
uncertainties; artificial neural networks; finite element method
1. INTRODUCTION
The safety of main cables under different load conditions is one of the major concerns in the
design of suspension bridges. In the design of the main cables of suspension bridges, a cable
Correspondence
to: Jin Cheng, Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail: chengjin@tsinghua.org.cn
Contract/grant sponsor: National Natural Science Foundation of China; contract/grant number: 50408037
Copyright q
2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES
1113
safety factor () is introduced to ensure an acceptable safety margin. Traditionally, the cable safety
factor is estimated using a deterministic model where all structural parameters are deterministic. In
reality, however, there are uncertainties in design variables. These uncertainties include geometric
properties such as cross-sectional properties and dimensions, material mechanical properties such
as modulus and strength, and load magnitude and distribution, etc. Thus, the deterministic model
cannot provide complete information regarding the cable safety factor. Therefore, the estimation
of the cable safety factor should be more rationally studied under a probabilistic viewpoint.
Probabilistic analysis provides a tool for incorporating structural modelling uncertainties in the
estimation of the cable safety factor by describing the uncertainties as random variables. Matteo
et al. [1] presented a methodology to estimate the current safety factor for the main suspension
cables. The methodology estimates the cable safety factor using ductile wire and ductile brittle
wire models, following two different approaches within each model: a Monte Carlo simulation
approach and an extreme-value-distribution approach. Haight et al. [2] used a type-I extreme value
distribution to compute cable safety factors for four suspension bridges. Cremona [3] presented
a probabilistic approach for cable residual strength assessment. The approach is applied to the
Tancarville suspension cables by taking into account the tensile test results, inspection data, and
weight-in-motion records. The application of a probabilistic approach in cable safety factors has
contributed to more realistic representations of the actual reliability of the main cables.
The current bridge design standards have been developed to ensure structural safety by defining
a target reliability index [4]. In other words, the structural reliability level is specified as a target
to be satisfied by the designer. Thus, calibration of cable safety factors is needed to guarantee
the specified reliability of the main cables. Although the above-mentioned probabilistic methods
have been very successful, the common drawback is their inability to deal with the calibration
problem of cable safety factors. These findings provide motivation for developing a methodology
for calibrating cable safety factors satisfying a prescribed reliability level.
The inverse reliability method can be pursued for the calibration of cable safety factors satisfying
the prescribed reliability. The basic idea of the method is to determine the unknown parameters
considered in the design such that a prescribed target reliability index is reached. In recent years,
many efforts have been made on the development of the method and/or application of the method
in different design problems. Winterstein et al. [5] utilized this method for the estimation of design
loads associated with specified target reliability levels for offshore structures. An extension of
the method was developed by Der Kiureghian et al. [6] for general limit state functions. Li and
Foschi [7] introduced an inverse reliability method for determining the design parameters, and
applied it to problems of earthquake and offshore engineering. Fitzwater et al. [8] applied inverse
reliability methods for extreme loads on pitch- and stall-regulated wind turbines. More recently,
Saranyasoontorn and Manuel [9] extended the inverse reliability method to estimate nominal loads
for the design of wind turbines against ultimate limit states.
Although the inverse reliability method found some applications for different design problems,
its application to calibration of cable safety factors of suspension bridges has only been realized
very recently by Cheng and Xiao [10], in which they proposed an inverse reliability method to
estimate the cable safety factors of suspension bridges satisfying a prescribed reliability. However,
their inverse reliability method uses the Gimsings simplified approach [11] for assessing cable
safety factors of suspension bridges by ignoring geometric non-linear effects. Moreover, only
limited design parameters can be considered in their method. Therefore, the purpose of the current
study is to develop an improved inverse reliability method for estimating cable safety factors of
suspension bridges satisfying the prescribed reliability.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1114
J. CHENG, C. S. CAI AND R.-C. XIAO
Generally, the accuracy of the inverse reliability problem solution can only be as good as the
quality of approximation of the response function. This quality depend on the shape of the response
function and the experimental sampling points. Therefore, the accuracy and efficiency depend on
the structural problem to be solved. Since the focus of this paper is long-span suspension bridges,
complex structural behaviour may not be captured accurately by a low-order polynomial. Artificial
neural networks (ANN), as discussed later, can adapt to more complex limit state functions that
may not be represented well by means of a low-order polynomial. Therefore, an ANN model is
used to determine an approximate response surface function in the present study.
In the proposed method, geometric non-linearity is considered by using non-linear finite element
method. An ANN model is applied to approximate the maximum cable tension function. The explicit
formulation of the maximum cable tension in the main span is derived by using the parameters
of the ANN model. Once the explicit maximum cable tension functions are found, the actual limit
state function is explicit in terms of the basic random variables and the unknown cable safety
factor. Thus, the conventional inverse reliability method such as inverse first-order reliability
method (inverse FORM method) is easily applied to solve the calibration problem of cable safety
factors. The accuracy and efficiency of the proposed method are demonstrated through a long-span
suspension bridge. The advantages of the proposed method over the deterministic method and the
conventional inverse reliability method are highlighted. Finally, some important parameters in the
proposed method are also discussed.
2. ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS FOR SUSPENSION BRIDGES

For illustrative purposes, two estimation methods of cable safety factors mentioned previously
are briefly reviewed in this section. One is deterministic analysis method and the other is inverse
FORM method with Gimsings simplified approach.
2.1. Estimation based on deterministic analysis method
The estimation of the cable safety factors based on deterministic analysis method is one of the most
frequently used approaches. As described in the previous sections, this method uses the assumption
of complete determinacy of structural parameters. In general, the method may be categorized into
two main types: (1) linear method (Gimsings simplified method [11]) and (2) non-linear finite
element method. They can be correspondingly expressed as
8 f A c c
=

(0.5(g + p) + c )l l 2 + 16 f 2
(1)
=
A c c
Tc (X )
(2)
where g and p are the uniform dead and live loads acting on the stiffening girder, respectively,
c is the uniform dead load acting on the main cable, l is the length of the main span, f is the sag
of the main cable, c is the rupture strength of the main cable, Ac is the cross-sectional area of
the main cable, X is the design variable, and Tc is the maximum cable tension in the main span.
It should be noted that Equation (1) includes limited design parameters only. Other design
parameters such as material properties are not considered. In addition, geometric non-linear effects
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1115
are not considered in Equation (1) either. However, using Equation (2), it is straightforward
to consider the complicated geometric arrangements, various sources of non-linearity, different
materials, and different load types.
2.2. Estimation based on inverse FORM method with Gimsings simplified approach
The cable safety factors obtained with Equations (1) and (2) do not explicitly account for the
uncertainties occurring in nature. In addition, the above deterministic method cannot be used to
solve the calibration problem of cable safety factors. To overcome these limitations, an estimation
method based on the inverse FORM method with Gimsings simplified method has been proposed
as an alternative. In the following, only a brief description of the method is given. The more
detailed theoretical description and the iteration procedure may be obtained from [10].
For a target reliability index t , the calibration problem of cable safety factors can be described as
finding the cable safety factor , which minimizes t =
and subject to G(, ) = 0
(3)
where G(, ) represents the transformation of the limit state function g(X, ) from the original
space to the space of standard normal variable, is the vector of standard normal variables, and X
represents the vector of basic random variables. Here, the five parameters in Equation (1), namely
g , c , p, Ac , and c are treated as random variables.
Referring to Equation (1), the following limit state equation for the main cable is used:

(0.5(g + p) + c )l l 2 + 16 f 2
G = c
(4)
8 f Ac
The inverse FORM method involves an iterative algorithm given by the following recursive
formulae:
k+1 = k + k dk
(5)
k+1 = k + k dk
(6)
dk = t
dk =
G(k , k )
k
G(k , k )
(7)
[ G(k , k ), k ] G(k , k ) + t G(k , k )

G(k , k )
(8)
where k is the vector of the standard normal variables at the kth iteration, k represents the cable
safety factor at the kth iteration, is a vector of gradient operators with respect to , is a
vector of gradient operators with respect to , [, ] is the inner product of two vectors, and k is the
step size at kth iteration, which is determined through a line search algorithm proposed by Der
Kiureghian et al. [6]. The algorithm proceeds iteratively until convergence is achieved, i.e. when
(k+1 k 2 + |k+1 k |2 )1/2

(k+1 2 + |k+1 |2 )1/2
Copyright q
(9)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1116
where is a small control parameter assigned by the user. From the writers previous experience,
a value of = 104 to 103 usually provides a satisfactory estimation.
3. PROPOSED ESTIMATION METHOD OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS

In practice, the limit state function G(, ) is of the form
G = c
Tc (X )
Ac
(10)
when the limit state function in Equation (10) is explicitly expressed in terms of the random
variables, Equation (3) can be solved easily using the above-mentioned inverse FORM method.
Unfortunately, the maximum cable tension in the main span, Tc , is usually an implicit function
of the random variables. In other words, the closed-form solutions of the maximum cable tension
in the main span are not available. The solution of Equation (3) is then not straightforward. To
overcome the problem of using the inverse FORM, an ANN-based inverse FORM is developed.
In the proposed method, the ANN method is applied to approximate the maximum cable tension
function. As a result, the explicit formulation of the maximum cable tension in the main span is
derived by using the parameters of the ANN model. Once the explicit maximum cable tension
functions are found, the limit state function in Equation (10) is explicit in terms of the basic random
variables and the unknown cable safety factor. Thus, the solution of Equation (3) can conveniently
be obtained by using the inverse FORM. Some of the important elements of the proposed method
are briefly discussed in the following sections.
3.1. Establishment of ANN model
The ANN method is an information processing technique based on the way the biological nervous
systems, such as the human brain, process information [12]. This technique as a whole has the
capability to respond to input stimuli, produce the corresponding response, and adapt to the
changing environment by learning from experience. More detailed description of the ANN method
can be found in [13].
There are a number of ANN paradigms. A multilayer feed-forward backpropagation network,
which is one of the well known and the most widely used ANN paradigms, is used in this study.
Some of the essential features of the proposed ANN are discussed very briefly in the following
sections.
3.1.1. ANN architecture and training algorithm. The proposed ANN structure consists of an input
layer, one hidden layer, and an output layer. Each layer has its corresponding units (neurons or
nodes) and weight connections. The number of neurons or nodes in the input and output layers is
determined by the number of input and output parameters, respectively. However, the selection of
an optimal number of neurons or nodes in the hidden layer is a difficult task. There is no general
rule for selecting the number of neurons or nodes in a hidden layer. It depends on the complexity
of the system being modelled. In this paper, the optimal number of neurons or nodes in the hidden
layer is determined by a trial-and-error process. Figure 1 shows a typical architecture of an ANN
model, in which the left column is the input layer, the right most column is the output layer, and
the middle one is the hidden layer.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1117
X1
Tc ( X )
X2
INPUT LAYER
HIDDEN LAYER
OUTPUT LAYER
Figure 1. Typical architecture of an ANN model.
Each neuron in the network operates by taking the sum of its weighted inputs and passing the
result through a non-linear activation function (transfer function). In this study, unless stated, a
logistic transfer function f (z) =1/(1 + ez ) is used to transfer the values of the input layer nodes
to the hidden layer nodes, whereas the linear transfer function f (z) = z is adopted to transfer the
values from the hidden layer to the output layer.
The training phase of the proposed model is implemented by using a training algorithm. In this
study, a backpropagation training algorithm is used to train all models. To make sure that the model
is well trained and has the capability to generalize, the Bayesian regularization is implemented
in the above backpropagation training algorithm. The Bayesian regularization minimizes a linear
combination of squared errors on the training samples and network weights. It also modifies
the linear combination so that at the end of the training, the resulting network model has good
generalization qualities. A more detailed discussion of the Bayesian regularization can be found
in the literature, e.g. MacKay [14].
The training process is terminated when any of the following conditions is satisfied: the maximum
number of iterations (epochs) is reached; the performance gradient falls below a minimum value;
or the performance is minimized to the target value.
3.1.2. Data preparation and processing. In this study, a set of input and output data is prepared
for developing the ANN model. A sub-set of data is used for training, while the other for testing
the model. For the purpose of simplicity, all input data (design variables) are randomly generated
from the distribution of the variables for a given problem. All output data (cable safety factors)
are obtained by using the above-mentioned non-linear finite element methods.
To improve the training process of the model, all training data need to be scaled before presenting
them to the model, the following scaling equation is used:
P scaled =
P P
P
(11)
where P and P scaled are the un-scaled and scaled values of the training data, respectively; P is
the mean value of the training data; and P is the standard deviation of the training data.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1118
3.1.3. Evaluation of the ANN performance. Once the ANN model is trained, the relationship
between the maximum cable tension in the main span and the various design variables can be
readily retrieved by using the model. The next step is to validate and evaluate the trained model.
This can be done by using common error metrics such as the mean absolute error (MAE) or
root-mean-squared error (RMSE). The two error functions can be expressed as follows:
n m
i=1
MAE =
j=1 |Pi j
Ti j |
(12)
nm
RMSE =
n m
i=1
j=1 (Pi j
Ti j )2
(13)
nm
where n is the number of patterns in the validation data (i.e. the test data); m the number of
components in the output vector; P the output vector from the ANN model; and T the desired
output vector from the deterministic non-linear finite element analysis. It should be noted that the
above-mentioned scaling equation is used in computing the MAE and RMSE.
3.2. Explicit formation of the maximum cable tension function
The explicit formation of the maximum cable tension function is derived by using the parameters
(inputs, weights and scaled values) of the proposed ANN model (see Equation (14)). All necessary
parameters are obtained from the trained ANN model. The weights and bias values in the derivations
of the ANN model-based formulations are given in Tables I and II. Each input is multiplied by a
connection weight.
Suppose that the transpose of the vector of input variables is, X T = (X 1 , X 2 ) and the transpose
of the vector of output variables is TcT = (Tc (X )). As mentioned earlier, a logistic transfer function
f (z) = 1/(1 + ez ) is used to transfer the values of the input layer nodes to the hidden layer nodes,
whereas the linear transfer function g(z) = z is adopted to transfer the values from the hidden layer
Table I. Weight and bias values between the input and hidden layers.
Number of hidden layer nodes (i)
Weights
w1i
w2i
Bias
w1 (1, 1)
w1 (2, 1)
b1 (1, 1)
w1 (1, 2)
w1 (2, 2)
b1 (2, 1)
w1 (1, 3)
w1 (2, 3)
b1 (3, 1)
Table II. Weight values between the output and hidden layers.
Weights
wi
Bias
Copyright q
w2 (1, 1)
w2 (1, 2)
b2
w2 (1, 3)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1119
to the output layer. For an ANN model with one hidden layer (see Figure 1) with three
hidden nodes, the explicit formation of an approximate limit state function Tc (X scaled ) can be
expressed as
Tc (X scaled ) = K 1w2 (1, 1) + K 2w2 (1, 2) + K 3w2 (1, 3) + b2
(14)
where
K1=
K2=
K3=
1
1+e
(w1 (1,1)X 1scaled +w1 (2,1)X 2scaled +b1 (1,1))
1+e
1+e
Note that the maximum cable tension function obtained by using Equation (14) has been scaled
and should be un-scaled before it is used.
3.3. Procedure for the proposed method
The procedure of the proposed method is as follows:
(1) Construct a database of deterministic maximum cable tension including the training data
sets and the test data sets.
(2) Determine the architecture of the ANN model and training algorithm.
(3) Train the ANN model with the training data sets.
(4) Evaluate and validate the ANN model with the test data sets.
(5) Extract the explicit formulation of the maximum cable tension function by the use of
well-trained ANN model parameters.
(6) After the explicit maximum cable tension function is determined, the inverse FORM is
applied to solve the calibration problem of cable safety factors defined in Equation (3) with
the limit state function of Equation (10).
In order to implement the method proposed above, a computer program named ECFSP is
developed by combining a deterministic non-linear finite element analysis program NASAB [15]
and the proposed algorithm. A flow chart for the program is given in Figure 2. The capabilities of
the proposed method and those of the other estimation methods mentioned earlier are compared
in Table III.
4. APPLICATION TO AN EXAMPLE SUSPENSION BRIDGE

4.1. Description of the example bridge
The example suspension bridge studied here is the Jiang Yin Bridge, with a 1385 m central span
length, which is one of the longest suspension bridges in China. The bridge span arrangements
are 336 + 1385 + 309 m. The elevation view of the bridge is shown in Figure 3.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1120
Construct a database of training

and test data sets using Program
NASAB
ANN Model
Determine the architecture of
the ANN model and training
algorithm
Train the ANN model with the
training data sets
Evaluate and validate the
ANN model with the test data sets
Extract the explicit formulation of

maximum cable tension function
(Equation 14)
Obtain the explicit formulation of

limit state function
(Equation 10)
Input statistics of the random

variables
Solve Eq.(3) to obtain cable safety factor by using

inverse FORM method
Figure 2. Flowchart of the proposed method (Program ECFSP).
The deck cross-section is an aerodynamically shaped closed box steel girder with 36.9 m wide
and 3.0 m high. The distance between the two cables is 32.5 m; and the hanger spacing is 16.0 m.
For more details of the bridge, the reader can refer [16, 17].
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
Copyright q
No
Consideration of parametric
uncertainty
Limit state function
Applied types of suspension bridges
Numbers of random variables
All types of
suspension bridges
Overestimate the
cable safety factor
Yes
Consideration of geometric
non-linearity of structure
Accuracy of calculation
Deterministic
method
Characteristics of different
methods
Only earth-anchored
suspension bridges
Only consider structural

parameters in Equation (1)
as random variables
Accurate
Explicit type
Yes
No
Inverse FORM with

Gimsings simplified method
Table III. Comparison of the characteristics of different methods.
All types of suspension

bridges
Consider all structural

parameters of suspension
bridges as random variables
Accurate
Implicit type
Yes
Yes
Proposed method
1121

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1122
Figure 3. Elevation of Jiang Yin Bridge (unit: m).
Table IV. Random variables and their statistical properties.
Ac
g
p
c
Mean
Coefficient of variation
Distribution type
Sources
0.4825 m2
180.0 kN/m
33.5 kN/m
1678 MPa
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
Lognormal
Normal
Extreme type I
Normal
Assumed
Imai [18]
4.2. Finite element modelling

A three-dimensional finite element model has been established for the Jiang Yin Bridge [17].
Three-dimensional beam elements were used to model the two bridge towers. The cables and
suspenders were modelled with three-dimensional truss elements accounting for the geometric
non-linearity due to the cable sag. The bridge deck is represented by a single line of beams and
the cross-section properties of the bridge deck are assigned to the beams as equivalent properties.
The connections between the bridge components and the supports of the bridge were properly
modelled.
4.3. Uncertainties of the example bridge
As it is well known, the bridge material properties and geometric parameters may fluctuate in
the vicinity of the nominal values, caused during the process of structural element manufacturing
and erection of the bridge. Therefore, system parameters should be treated as random rather than
deterministic variables. Besides, the various loads acting on the bridge are also random variables
due to their nature and/or insufficient measured data. However, with the increase in the number
of random variables, the number of training sample sets required to evaluate the ANN model
increases. For the sake of simplicity, only four design parameters, namely, the uniform dead load
acting on the stiffening girder, g , the uniform live load, p, the cross-sectional area of the main
cable, Ac , and the rupture strength of the main cable, c , are treated as random variables in the
subsequent study. Table IV shows the statistics of these random variables. As the objective of this
study is to propose an efficient method for estimating the cable safety factor of suspension bridges
satisfying prescribed reliability levels, all random parameters in the following analysis are based
on arbitrary but typical values. On the other hand, since the determination of the correlation of the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1123
Table V. Range of input and output variables for the

example bridge.
Variables
g
p
Range of values (kN/m)

156.02211.44
30.8736.76
random parameters is a difficult task without sufficient data, using the independence assumption
can greatly simplify the reliability assessment. Therefore, all random parameters in this paper
are treated as stochastically independent from each other. Note that the mean values of these
parameters are used in the following deterministic analysis.
4.4. Some parameters in the proposed method
To estimate the cable safety factor using the proposed method, the target reliability level needs to
be specified for the limit state considered in this study. Nowak et al. [19] recommended a target
component reliability index of 3.5 and a target system reliability index of 5.5 in the ultimate limit
states for bridge structures. Li et al. [20] suggested that the target reliability index for bridge
structures should lie in an approximate range of 3.25.2. A target reliability index of 3.5 has been
used in the calibration of the OHBD code and the AASHTO code for bridges [21]. Based on these
data, a target reliability index of 3.5 is used in this study unless otherwise stated.
In the following analyses, unless otherwise stated, the mean values shown in Table IV are
selected as the initial values for the random variables, = 3.5, and the proposed ANN model has
two input nodes, three hidden nodes, and one output node. The number of training data sets is
20, and the data sets for testing the model are eight. The ranges of variables in these data sets are
shown in Table V.
4.5. Verification of the proposed method
In the literature, no available benchmark calibration problems of cable safety factors under prescribed reliability for suspension bridges are available for the verification of the study. One way to
verify the proposed method is to make separate verifications for the estimation of the maximum
cable force in the main span by the ANN model and for the accuracy and efficiency of inverse
FORM method used in the proposed method.
This verification study is performed to determine the feasibility of using the ANN model to
estimate the maximum cable force in the main span of the example suspension bridge and the
verification of the accuracy and efficiency of the inverse FORM method is referred to [10]. The
performance of training and test data sets and error parameters of the ANN model are given in
Figures 4(a) and (b) and Table VI, respectively. As can be seen, the correlation factor for both sets
is quite high, which proves the high accuracy of the ANN model.
The weights and bias values in the derivations of Tc (scaled
, p scaled ) formulations are given in
g
Tables VII and VIII. Substituting these values into Equation (14) one obtains the following:
Tc (scaled
, p scaled ) = 3.3760K 1 4.4853K 2 + 3.3184K 3 1.1543
g
Copyright q
(15)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1124
Maximum cable force in the main span,Tc

from nonlinear finite element analysis (KN)
320000
Training data
310000
300000
290000
280000
270000
260000
260000
270000
280000
290000
300000
310000
320000
Predicted maximum cable force in the main span, Tc(KN)
(a)
from nonlinear finite element analysis (KN)
Maximum cable force in the main span,Tc
310000
Test data
300000
290000
280000
270000
260000
260000
(b)
270000
280000
290000
300000
310000
Predicted maximum cable force in the main span, Tc(KN)
Figure 4. Comparison between the ANN model and non-linear finite element analysis, Tc for the example
bridge using: (a) training data; and (b) test data.
where
K1=
Copyright q
1
1+e
(0.5365scaled
+0.1355 p scaled 1.5982)
g

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1125
Table VI. A summary of the performance of the ANN model for MAE and
RMSE, both for the training and test data.
Maximum cable force in the main span, Tc
Training data
Test data
5.8e4
0.7e3
8.03e004
1.2e3
MAE
RMSE
Table VII. Weight and bias values between input and hidden layers for the
example bridge.
Weights
w1i
w2i
Bias
0.5365
0.1355
1.5982
0.4903
0.1223
1.4408
0.3740
0.0596
0.2552
Table VIII. Weight values between output and hidden layers

for the example bridge.
Weights
wi
Bias
K2=
K3=
3.3760
4.4853
1.1543
3.3184
1
1+e
(0.4903scaled
0.1223 p scaled 1.4408)
g
1
1+e
(0.3740scaled
0.0596 p scaled 0.2552)
g
Note that the above Tc (scaled

, p scaled ) has been scaled and should be un-scaled before it is
g
used. For this purpose, substituting Equation (11) into Equation (15), Tc (scaled
, p scaled ) becomes
g
Tc (g , p)
Tc (g , p) = 45 656.8155K 1 60 659.0842K 2 + 44 877.4343K 3 + 271 771.1610
(16)
where
K1 =
Copyright q
1
1 + e(0.03897g 0.08773 p+11.6747)

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1126
Table IX. Comparison of the maximum cable force in the main span, Tc (KN) obtained by the derived
formulation, Gimsings simplified method, and deterministic non-linear finite element method.
Group no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Derived formulation
Gimsings simplified
method
Deterministic
non-linear finite
element method
293 953.75
292 281.21
287 538.84
292 681.65
292 643.36
282 496.44
281 228.19
279 561.07
266 131.06
281 846.25
295 121.7
293 287.7
288 057.1
293 707.3
293 697.1
282 481.9
281 061.3
279 330.1
264 367.9
281 792.4
293 950
292 280
287 530
292 660
292 660
282 450
281 150
279 570
265 850
281 820
K2 =
K3 =
1
1 + e(0.03561g +0.07922 p7.7356)
1
1 + e(0.02717g +0.03860 p+3.9300)
To check the accuracy of the derived Tc (g , p) formulation, we can generate 10 groups of
random samples simultaneously. Each group consists of two random variables (g , p). The function
value of Tc (g , p) obtained by the derived formulation, the Gimsings simplified method, and the
deterministic non-linear finite element analysis are summarized in Table IX. Reasonable agreements
have been observed, indicating that both the derived formulation and the Gimsings simplified
method for estimating the maximum cable force in the main span is adequate from a deterministic
point of view. In addition, it should be noted that the predicted results using the derived formulation
show more favourable agreement with the deterministic non-linear finite element data than the
predicted results using the Gimsings simplified method.
4.6. Sensitivity study of the proposed method
The proposed method is mainly based on the following parameters: (1) the initial value of ; (2)
the number of nodes in the hidden layer; (3) the number of training data sets; and (4) the transfer
function. In this section, different values are chosen for these parameters in order to determine
their effects on the estimated cable safety factors of the example bridge.
4.6.1. Sensitivity on the initial value of . Since the initial value of used in the proposed method
is chosen arbitrarily, it is necessary to investigate the effect of the initial value of on the final
results. For this purpose, three different initial values of are used: 4.5, 3.5 and 1.5. The variations
of the estimated values with the iteration number are shown in Figure 5 for different initial values
of . It can be seen that the iteration number may slightly increase for some cases. However, the
convergence is achieved and the accuracy of the results is the same regardless of the initial value
of . The results indicate that while the initial value of could have a major effect on the rate of
convergence of the proposed algorithm, the accuracy of the proposed algorithm is not influenced
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1127
4.5
Initial value of =4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1
Iterative number
Figure 5. Variations of the cable safety factor for the example bridge versus the number of
iterations for different initial values of .
Table X. Estimated value of for different numbers of nodes

in the hidden layer.
Numbers of nodes in the hidden layer
Estimated value
2.11
2.11
2.12
by the initial value of . Therefore, the proposed algorithm can be used to solve the calibration
problem of cable safety factors considered in this paper.
4.6.2. Sensitivity on the number of nodes in the hidden layer. In this study, three different numbers
of nodes in the hidden layer ranging from three to nine are investigated, and the results are listed in
Table X. From this table, it can be seen that changing the numbers of nodes in the hidden layer has
little effect on the accuracy of the predicted values of . Using more than three nodes in the hidden
layer results in little improvement in accuracy, and possibly results in a loss of generalization.
4.6.3. Sensitivity on the number of training data sets. Keeping other parameters unchanged and
only varying the number of training data sets, the predicted values of are compared in Table XI.
It is clear that changing the numbers of training data sets has a significant effect on the accuracy
of the estimated values of . The best accuracy is associated with at least 10 training data sets.
With less than 10 training data sets, the ANN model in the proposed method seems unable to be
trained adequately and leads to a poor estimated value of . By reducing the number of training
data sets from 10 to 5, the error increases from 0.9% to 9.5%.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1128
Table XI. Estimated value of for different number of training data sets.
Number of training data sets
Estimated value
10
15
20
2.31
2.13
2.12
2.11
Table XII. Transfer functions used in this paper.

Name
Equations
g(z) = 1/(1 + ez )
g(z) = 2/(1 + e2z ) 1
Logistic
Tangent
Table XIII. Value of obtained by applying different

transfer functions.
Transfer function
Logistic
Tangent
2.11
2.11
Table XIV. Comparisons of different methods for cable safety factor, .

t = 3.5
t = 4.0
t = 4.5
Inverse FORM
Inverse FORM
Inverse FORM
with Gimsings
with Gimsings
with Gimsings
Different Deterministic
simplified
Proposed
simplified
Proposed
simplified
Proposed
method
method
method
method
method
method
method
method
2.84
2.10
2.11
2.00
2.02
1.92
1.94
4.6.4. Sensitivity on transfer functions. The fourth important parameter of the proposed method
is the transfer function which is used to transfer the values of the input layer nodes to the hidden
layer nodes. In this study, two types of transfer functions tabulated in Table XII are tested for
the given example bridge. The results are listed in Table XIII. As shown, the results associated
with the logistic transfer function are almost the same as those associated with the tangent transfer
function.
4.7. Estimation of cable safety factors using different methods
This section examines three methods of estimating cable safety factors of suspension bridges
and gives the comparisons of the accuracy and reliability of the three methods. Three different
values of the target reliability index are used: 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5, and the results are presented in
Table XIV. From this table, it can be seen that: (1) deterministic method considerably overestimates
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1129
2.12
2.35
2.10
2.30
2.08
2.06
2.25
2.04
2.20
2.02
2.00
2.15
1.98
2.10
1.96
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.53
178
180
(b)
mean value of the cable cross-section, Ac(m2)
(a)
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
196
198
200
1840
1860
Mean value of the dead load, (KN/m)
2.35
2.100
2.30
2.095
2.25
2.085
2.090
2.20
2.080
2.15
2.075
2.10
2.070
33.0
(c)
33.5
34.0
34.5
35.0
35.5
36.0
Mean value of the live load, p (KN/m)
36.5
1660
37.0
(d)
1680
1700
1720
1740
1760
1780
1800
1820
Mean value of rupture strength, c (MPa)
Figure 6. Influence of the mean values of the different random variables on the cable safety factor for the
example bridge: (a) cable cross-sectional area; (b) dead load; (c) live load; and (d) rupture strength.
the cable safety factors of the bridge; (2) as the target reliability index increases, the estimated
cable safety factor decreases; and (3) there exists small difference between the results estimated
by the inverse FORM method with Gimsings simplified approach and the proposed method.
4.8. Effect of mean value of random variables on cable safety factors
Keeping the coefficients of variation of all random variables unchanged and only the mean values
of all random variables are varied, the estimated cable safety factors are compared in Figure 6. As
the mean values of random variables Ac and c increase, the estimated cable safety factors also
increase. However, an opposite effect is observed for the random variables and p. As the mean
values of the random variables and p decrease, the estimated cable safety factors increase.
4.9. Effect of standard deviation of random variables on cable safety factors
Figure 7 shows the estimated cable safety factors having the same coefficients of variation for all
random variables but different standard deviation. As the standard deviation of all random variables
increases, the estimated cable safety factors decrease.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1130
2.18
2.20
2.16
2.15
2.14
2.05
2.12
2.10
2.00
2.10
1.95
2.08
1.90
2.06
1.85
1.80
2.04
0.010
(a)
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
Standard deviation of the cable cross-section,
0.045
0.050
(b)
Ac(m2)
10
12
14
16
18
Standard deviation of the dead load, (KN/m)
2.10
2.2
2.05
2.1
2.0
2.00
1.9
1.95
1.8
1.7
1.90
0.5
(c)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Standard deviation of the live load, p (KN/m)
0.04
3.5
(d)
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Standard deviation of rupture strength, c(MPa)
Figure 7. Influence of the standard deviation of the different random variables on the cable safety factor
for the example bridge: (a) cable cross-sectional area; (b) dead load; (c) live load; and (d) rupture strength.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A new estimation method of cable safety factors of suspension bridges has been proposed in this
paper through a combination of the advantages of the inverse FORM method, the NFEM, and the
ANN method. Using the inverse FORM method, the proposed method can solve the calibration
problem of cable safety factors of suspension bridges. This is a significant advancement over existing deterministic and probabilistic methods. By introducing the NFEM, the proposed method can
exactly account for the geometric non-linearity of structures and all key design parameters influencing the maximum cable tension in the main span. Also, the proposed method can be extended
to solve the calibration problem of cable safety factors of suspension bridges when the limit
state functions are not known explicitly. These are the two main advancements over the inverse FORM method with Gimsings simplified approach. The use of ANN technique in the
proposed method has the following advantages: it makes the proposed method to be: (1) able to
derive the explicit limit state function; (2) very efficient after the explicit limit state function is
found, without having to perform time-consuming deterministic non-linear finite element analyses;
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1131
and (3) better in obtaining deterministic estimation results than using the Gimsings simplified
method.
As an application of the proposed algorithm, the cable safety factor of a long-span suspension
bridge is estimated. The effects of various parameters on the estimated cable safety factor of
suspension bridges are investigated, and the following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The validity and the accuracy of the proposed ANN-based inverse FORM method were
verified by making separate verifications for the estimation of the maximum cable force in
the main span by an ANN model and for the accuracy and efficiency of inverse FORM
method used in proposed method. Therefore, the proposed method would be effective in
estimating cable safety factors of suspension bridges satisfying prescribed reliability levels.
(2) Deterministic method considerably overestimates the cable safety factor of suspension
bridges. The actual cable safety factor of suspension bridges should be estimated based
on the proposed method.
(3) Estimation of the cable safety factors of suspension bridges using the proposed method
offers theoretically more accurate results than that estimated by the inverse FORM method
with Gimsings simplified approach. However, from the view of engineering practice, the
inverse FORM method with Gimsings simplified approach can be used for estimating cable
safety factors of suspension bridges satisfying prescribed reliability levels, which offers
acceptable results in many cases.
(4) The target reliability index has a significant influence on the cable safety factor of suspension
bridges. As the target reliability index increases, the estimated cable safety factor decreases.
(5) The sensitivity study of the proposed method indicates that the estimated cable safety factor
is sensitive to the numbers of training data sets in the ANN model. The estimated errors
increase as the numbers of training data sets decrease. However, the estimated cable safety
factor is insensitive to the initial value of cable safety factors, the number of nodes in the
hidden layer, and the transfer function.
(6) The cable safety factor of suspension bridges is highly influenced by the statistics of some
random variables such as the uniform dead load acting on the stiffening girder, g , the
uniform live load, p, the cross-sectional area of the main cable, Ac , and rupture strength
of the main cable, c . Therefore, the accurate determination of the distribution of such
parameters is very important to obtain reliable estimation results.
Although emphasis in this study was placed on the calibration of cable safety factors of earthanchored suspension bridges, the proposed algorithm offers immediate applications to other types of
suspension bridges such as self-anchored suspension bridges as well as other calibration problems.
It should be noted that the proposed algorithm is not intended as a replacement for existing inverse
reliability methods, but as a possible complement of these methods. Further development of the
proposed algorithm is needed for the estimation of cable safety factors of suspension bridges.
APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF EQUATION (1) [11]
The cable safety factor is obtained as the ratio of the cable strength (Tu ) over the maximum
cable tension in the main span (Tc ), namely
=
Copyright q
Tu
Tc
(A1)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
1132
For simplicity, the maximum cable tension in the main span is given as [11]

(0.5(g + p) + c )l l 2 + 16 f 2
Tc =
8f
(A2)
The cable strength (Tu ) can be expressed as

Tu = Ac c
(A3)
Substituting (A2) and (A3) into (A1), can be written as

=
8 f Ac c

(0.5(g + p) + c )l l 2 + 16 f 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant number
50408037. This support is much appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Matteo J, Deodatis G, Billington DP. Safety analysis of suspension-bridge cables: Williamsburg bridge. Journal
of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1994; 120(11):31973211.
2. Haight RQ, Billington DP, Khazem D. Cable safety factors for suspension bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering
(ASCE) 1997; 2(4):157167.
3. Cremona C. Probabilistic approach for cable residual strength assessment. Engineering Structures 2003; 25:
377384.
4. Reid SG. Specification of design criteria based on probabilistic measures of design performance. Structural Safety
2002; 24:333345.
5. Winterstein SR, Ude TC, Cornell CA, Bjerager P, Haver S. Environmental contours for extreme response: inverse
FORM with omission factors. Proceedings of the ICOSSAR-93, Innsbruck, 1993.
6. Der Kiureghian A, Zhang Y, Li C-C. Inverse reliability problem. Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE)
1994; 120(5):11541159.
7. Li H, Foschi RO. An inverse reliability method and its application. Structural Safety 1998; 20:257270.
8. Fitzwater LM, Cornell CA, Veers PS. Using environmental contours to predict extreme events on wind turbines.
Wind Energy Symposium, AIAA/ASME, 2003; 244258.
9. Saranyasoontorn K, Manuel L. Efficient models for wind turbine extreme loads using inverse reliability. Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrials Aerodynamics 2004; 92:789804.
10. Cheng J, Xiao R-C. Application of inverse reliability method to estimation of cable safety factors of long span
suspension bridges. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2006; 23(2):195207.
11. Gimsing N. Cable Supported Bridges: Concept and Design. Wiley: New York, 1997.
12. Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H. Artificial neural networks for the prediction of shear capacity of steel strengthened
RC beams. Construction and Building Material 2004; 18:409417.
13. Flood I, Kartam N. Neural networks in civil engineering I: principles and understandings. Journal of Computing
in Civil Engineering (ASCE) 1994 8(2):131148.
14. MacKay DJC. Bayesian interpolation. Neural Computation 1992; 4(3):415447.
15. Cheng J, Xiao R-C, Xiang H-F, Jiang J-J. NASAB: a finite element software for the nonlinear aerostatic stability
analysis of cable-supported bridge. Advances in Engineering Software 2003; 34:287296.
16. Xiang HF et al. Wind-resistant Study on the Jiang Yin suspension bridge. Research Report of Tongji University,
Shanghai, China, 1995 (in Chinese).
17. Cheng J, Jiang J-J, Xiao R-C, Xiang H-F. Nonlinear aerostatic stability analysis of Jiang Yin suspension bridge.
Engineering Structures 2002; 24:773781.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme
1133
18. Imai K. Reliability analysis of geometrically nonlinear structures with application to suspension bridges.
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado,
Boulder, CO, 1999.
19. Nowak AS, Szerszen MM, Park CH. Target safety levels for bridges. Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Kyoto, Japan, 1997; 18971903.
20. Li YH, Bao WG, Guo XW, Cheng XY. Structural Reliability for Highway Bridges and Probability-Based Limit
State Design. Peoples Communication Press: Beijing, 1997 (in Chinese).
21. Casas JR. Reliability-based partial safety factors in cantilever construction of concrete bridges. Journal of
Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997; 123(3):305312.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nme

J2007-Estimation of Cable Safety Factors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J2007-Estimation of Cable Safety Factors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

Estimation of cable safety factors of suspension bridges using

of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

J. CHENG, C. S. CAI AND R.-C. XIAO

2. ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS FOR SUSPENSION BRIDGES

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES

[ G(k , k ), k ] G(k , k ) + t  G(k , k )

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

J. CHENG, C. S. CAI AND R.-C. XIAO

3. PROPOSED ESTIMATION METHOD OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES

Figure 1. Typical architecture of an ANN model.

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

J. CHENG, C. S. CAI AND R.-C. XIAO

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES

(w1 (1,1)X 1scaled +w1 (2,1)X 2scaled +b1 (1,1))

(w1 (1,2)X 1scaled +w1 (2,2)X 2scaled +b1 (2,1))

(w1 (1,3)X 1scaled +w1 (2,3)X 2scaled +b1 (3,1))

4. APPLICATION TO AN EXAMPLE SUSPENSION BRIDGE

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

J. CHENG, C. S. CAI AND R.-C. XIAO

Construct a database of training

Extract the explicit formulation of

Obtain the explicit formulation of

Input statistics of the random

Solve Eq.(3) to obtain cable safety factor by using

Figure 2. Flowchart of the proposed method (Program ECFSP).

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Limit state function

Applied types of suspension bridges

Numbers of random variables

Only consider structural

Inverse FORM with

Table III. Comparison of the characteristics of different methods.

All types of suspension

Consider all structural

ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

J. CHENG, C. S. CAI AND R.-C. XIAO

Figure 3. Elevation of Jiang Yin Bridge (unit: m).

Table IV. Random variables and their statistical properties.

4.2. Finite element modelling

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2007; 70:11121133

ESTIMATION OF CABLE SAFETY FACTORS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES

Table V. Range of input and output variables for the

Range of values (kN/m)

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[ G(k , k ), k ] G(k , k ) + t G(k , k )