CHAPTER 2: PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SINGLE SPAN

SUSPENSION BRIDGES WITH REVERSE

CABLES

2.1 General

A detailed study on single span suspension bridges with reverse cables has been done by K.K.
Borgaonkar in his Ph.D work under guidance of Dr.Vipul Prakash on 2012 at IIT Roorkee. The
work is strongly focused on the advantages of using reverse cables on single span suspension
bridges. A preliminary analysis has been performed using all three theories namely Elastic
theory, Un-stiffened theory and Deflection theory. The main objective was to compute the
hanger forces, bending moments, shear forces and deflection for the different number of reverse
cables ranging from 1 to 10 and governing influence lines for those design parameters have been
drawn. In this thesis, closes form solutions and dimensionless deign charts for estimating the
maximum deflections and bending moments for single span suspension bridges with reverse
cables have been developed for a point load and uniform patch loads also have been provided for
the structural engineer to analyze and deign the suspension bridges effortlessly. The development
of these charts necessitated use of simplifying assumptions, which have also been used in the
various theories of suspension bridges. This work is also enclosed the dynamic behavior of
single span suspension bridges with reverse cables.

In the past literature, most of the work emphasized to analyze the suspension bridges by using
deflection theory from different numerical methods. The dynamic behavior of suspension
bridges was also discussed in past literature. There are only some researchers are available for
the analysis of suspension using different profiles of main cable. But, there are no literatures or
works related to using reverse cables as a major component in suspension bridges are found.
Previous work is the foremost research on reverse cables as introduced as major structural
component in suspension bridges. From the past works and researches, the only help is getting
that the knowledge about the suspension bridges components, their functions and the deflection
theory to analyze it.

The previous work on single span suspension bridges with reverse cables was successfully
completed. To continue with the three span suspension bridges with reverse cable, the previous
work should has been studied strongly and also the check the methods, procedure and results.
2.2 SINGLE-SPAN SUSPENSION BRIDGES WITH REVERSE CABLES
In the previous thesis, all three theories have been studied and used for the analysis of the single
span suspension bridges with reverse cables. But, before dealing with the reverse cables in
suspension bridges, first start with the simple suspension bridge with no reverse cables and its
governing equations. Figure.2.1 shows forces and deflections due to live load P in a suspension
bridge.

Figure 2.1: Forces and deformations in a suspension bridge due to live load P,Harazaki, I, et.al (2000)

To derive the governing equation of suspension bridges, it is necessary to assume that:

The entire suspension bridge function as a continuous body and the hanger ropes are
closely spaced.
All the cables are completely flexible and inextensible.
The stiffening girder must be horizontal & straight and EI of the stiffening girder is
constant along the span.
The dead load of the total structure including cables should be uniformly distribute along
the span, is completely transmitted by the hanger to the main cable which takes the
parabolic form.
The deflection in main cable and stiffening girder are equal at the same section due to
only live load.

From the Figure.2.1, at any cross-section, x, the bending moment, M, in the stiffening girder
due to live load P is given as follows:

= + ( + )( + ) (2.1)

Where
 = Bending moment due to dead load which is taken by the main cable

= Bending moment due to live load P

, = Horizontal tension in the main cable due to dead load and live load, respectively

= Longitudinal position of the main cable at cross-section x

= Deflection of the stiffening girder and main cable due to live load P

As per the assumption, when there is no live load, all the dead load should taken by the cables
and therefore, stiffening girder is free from the bending moment. This condition gives:

= (2.2)

= ( + ) (2.3)

From the Equation 2.3, the bending moment at any cross-sections of the stiffening girder can be
calculated provided the horizontal tension in main cable and the deflection are known. For
the calculation of deflection of the stiffening girder, using the differential equation of the
deflection curve of the beam:

2
= (2.4)
2

By using Equation 2.3, the following equation for calculation deflection :

2
( + ) = (2.5)
2

The Equation 2.5 is used in deflection theory for the analysis of suspension bridges. The
Equation 2.5 is nonlinear differential equation, and therefore neither principle of superposition
holds nor can the influence line approach be used. Therefore, the Equation 2.5 needs to be
changed into the linearized deflection theory for more practical use.

The similar procedure will be used to obtain differential equation for single span suspension
bridge with reverse cables. In this case, reverse cables are connected below the stiffening girder
with the cables. These reverse cables are pre-tensioned and applied uniform downward force to
the stiffening girder. As per the assumption, at initial condition when there is no live load on
deck, all the dead loads including reverse cables weight and their applied forces should be taken
by the main cables with no bending moments and deflections on the deck.
From the previous thesis, the linearized differential equation has been computed for the single
span suspension bridge with reverse cables. Figure.2.2 shows the forces and deformations model
in a suspension bridge with two hinged stiffening girder with reverse cable.

L
Hwm+ Hwm Hwm+ Hwm
ym

Hwm+ Hwm
wd+q

P
wd+q

q
Hr+ Hr
yr Hr+ Hr

Hr+ Hr a b
x

Figure 2.2: Forces and deformations in a single pan Suspension Bridges with two hinged stiffening girder
with reverse cable (K.K.Borgaonkar, 2012)

From the Figure.2.2, Equation 2.1 can be written as:

= + ( + )( + ) + (( + ) ( )) (2.6)

Where,

= Horizontal Tension in main cable due dead load of entire structure and reverse
cable pretensions,

= Increment of horizontal tension in main cable due live on the deck,

= Sum of horizontal tension in reverse cables due to applied pretensions to the

reverse cable,

= Change of horizontal tension in reverse cable due to live load the deck,

& = Initial sag & camber of main cable and reverse cables at section-
Bending moments due to combine dead load and reverse cables pretension loads is balanced by
the bending moment obtained by the horizontal tension in the main cable gives:

4( )
= (2.7)
2

Using = + and = + , by solving the Equation 2.6, it can be

written as:

2
2 + ( + ) = ( ) (2.8)

Equation 2.8 is nonlinear equation and this need be changed into a linear equation, therefore

2
2 + = ( ) (2.9)

Where,

+
= =1+ (2.10)

The Equation 2.9 can become linear, if is assumed to remain constant, irrespective of live
load position on the deck. In the reverse cable suspension bridge system, due presence of live
load on the deck, horizontal tension in main cable will increases and in reverse cables it
decreases. Therefore, the net change in total horizontal tension will be much less than the
suspension bridge system without reverse cables. Any initial value can be taken as for the
preliminary design of suspension bridges with reverse cables. K.K. Borgaaonkar has suggested
( +) 2
in his thesis that the = can be taken as initial value for the economical design of
8

suspension bridges with reverse cables.

Right hand side of Equation 2.9 can be written as:

2
+ = (2.11)
2

Where,

= Bending moment of simply supported beam at along the bridge due live load P
anywhere of the deck

= Bending moment of simply supported beam at along the bridge due to hanger
forces provided by reverse cable in its parabolic portion.
In deflection theory, Equation 2.11 will be solved for . In case elastic theory, = 0 and for
2
unstiffened theory = 0 , therefore from the Equation 2.11:
2

Equation for Elastic Theory:

2
= = (2.12)
2

Equation for Unstiffened Theory:

= (2.13)

The linearized deflection theory Equation 2.11 can be solved by using finite difference method
using central differences. Equation 2.11 can be written in the following non-dimensional form:

2 (/) 2 ( ) 2
+ ( ) = (2.14)
(/)2

2
Using Steinmans parameter relative stiffness, 2 2

2 (/) ( )
2
+ ( 2 2 ) = ( 2 2 ) (2.15)
(/)

Equation 2.15 can be re-written in terms of normalized coordinates = /L and x = x/L

2 ( )
2
+ ( 2 2 ) = ( 2 2 ) (2.16)

Using central difference approximation, we obtain the following finite difference equation.

1 + 2 +1 ( )
2
+ 2 2 = ( 2 2 ) (2.17)

Or

1 1 2 1 1 1 ( )
( 2 2 2 ) 1 + (1 + 2 2 2 ) ( 2 2 2 ) +1 = (2.17)

2
Substituting the value of 2 2 at right hand side Equation 2.17A

1 2 1 ( )
2 2
[ ] 1 + [ + ] [ ] +1 = (2.18)
2 2 2

The finite difference Equation 2.18 was solved numerically to obtain the solutions.
The computation has been performed for ten reverse cables ranging from 1 to 10 and fourteen
values of 2 2 = 2 for G ranging from 1 to 14. For Elastic theory ( 2 2 = 0), taking = ,
and for Un-stiffened theory ( 2 2 = ) taking = , then Therefore, Equation for Elastic
theory can obtained by substituting 2 2 = 0 in the Equation 2.18

1 2 1 ( )
[ ] + [ ] [ ] = (2.19)
2 1 2 2 +1

To compute the equation for Un-stiffened theory substitute the value of 2 2 = into the
Equation 2.17B, and therefore

( ) ( )
= = (2.20)

Other condition like = 0 should also be satisfied over the span. By solving the above
equation for all theories, deflection will be computed. For = to 14, or the solutions from

solving Equations 2.18, 2.19, the deflections will be in the term of non-dimensional form as .
3

Whereas for = 1 to , or the solutions from solving Equation 2.17B and 2.20, the deflections

will be in the term of non-dimensional form as .

2.3 ALGORITHM FOR SINGLE SPAN SUSPENSION BRIDGES WITH

REVERSE CABLES

Due to the complexity of the structure mechanism, a computer program needs to be generated to
deal with the labors numerical computations involve in the analysis of the structure. FORTRAN
programming is used for the numerical analysis and generating preferred results. FORTRAN
programming has some limitation like, doesnt solve or create the differential equations,
matrices, inverse, and matrices addition, subtraction and multiplication etc. Therefore, an
algorithm for the FORTRAN programming has been developed to ease the problem.

The objective of the algorithms is to calculate the deflection , and therefore, Equation 2.18 has
been divided into two parts, one is deflection due to and another one is due to .

Figure 2.3: Bending moment of simple supported beam due to live load P
From the Figure.2.3, bending moment at any section can be calculated when the load is
anywhere on the span. The left hand side of the Equation 2.18 will be transformed into a tri-
diagonal stiffness matrix and right hand side is known , therefore

[ ]11 , = (2.21)

1
In Tri-diagonal Stiffness matrix the diagonal term is (2 + 2 2 ) and sub-diagonal & super-
1 1
diagonal term is ( 2 ). Where = and N= number of segments of stiffening girder of span

length L.

1 1
( 2 + 2 ) ( 2 ) 0

1 1 1
( 2 ) ( 2 + 2 ) ( 2 ) 0
=
1 1
0 ( 2 ) ( 2 + 2 )

0
[ ]
11

From the Equation 2.21, deflection , can be calculated where is bending moment in
stiffening girder due to live Load P=1

Now for the deflection due to can be calculated for different number of reverse cables NR
and also using to determine the hanger forces of reverse cables.

For NR = 0 or NR = 1 or Classical Suspension Bridge

Figure 2.4: Simple supported Beam with applied upward load vector , = 1/ due main cables
hanger forces

Using single reverse cable (NR=1) in suspension bridge, the reverse cable doesnt change the
performance of classical suspension bridge and therefore with one reverse cable or no reverse
cable doesnt make any changes in suspension bridges, hence, NR=0 NR =1.

The deflection , can be computed by using Tri-diagonal Stiffness Matrix and bending
moment generated by uniformly distributed load 1/N to the whole span.
Total Deflection:

= + , (2.22)

Where,

, = Deflection in the stiffening girder due to applied load vector ,

, = [1/ 1/ 1/ 1/]11

= Magnitude hanger force of main cable due to live load P

To determine the one unknown, wm , one condition is required. It is obtained from, the
inextensibility condition for the main cable which has the same curvature throughout its length.
L
This inextensibility condition gives 0 i dx = 0

1/
[1/] . [ ] = 0

So that from Equation 2.22,

1/ 1/
[ ]
[1/] . + [1/] . [ , ] = 0 (2.23)

[1/ 1/ ][ ]
= (2.24)
[1/ 1/ ][ , ]

Or Equation 2.24 can be written as:

1
=1 ,
= 1 (2.25)
=1 , ,

Substitute the value of into the Equation 2.25 and obtain the corrected value of
deflections .
For NR = 2

Figure 2.5: Simple supported beam with applied upward load vector for NR=2 (A) at 1st Reverse cable
segment load vector wvec1,i (B) at 2nd Reverse cable segment load vector wvec2,i
2 2

In case of NR=2, both the reverse cables are attached to the stiffening girder at equal segments (0
to L/2 & L/2 to L) with the help of ties. As per shown in Figure.2.5, upward forces 1/N is applied
as load vector at each reverse cables segments and therefore a similar formulation is done to
calculate the hanger forces in each reverse cables due to live load P,

= + 1, 1 + 2, 2 (2.26)
2 2 2 2

To determine the two unknown, 1 and 2 , two conditions are required. It is obtained from, the
2 2

L/2
inextensibility condition which gives 0 i dx = 0 and /2 = 0 and therefore

1 = ,1 + 1,1 1 + 2,1 2 = 0 (2.27)

2 2 22 2 22 2

And

2 = ,2 + 1,2 1 + 2,2 2 = 0 (2.28)

2 2 22 2 22 2

Now, ,1 , 1,1 and 2,1 can be obtained as the dot-product of load vector 1, with
2 22 22 2

, , 1, and 2, respectively, similarly ,2 , 1,2 and 2,2 can be obtained as the dot-product of
2 2 2 22 22

load vector 2, with , , 1, and 2, respectively. Therefore Equation 2.27 and 2.28 can
2 2 2

be summarized as the following equations given below:

1

1, . [ + 1, . 1 + 2, . 2 ] = 0 (2.29)
2 2 2 2 2
=1

And
 1

2, . [ + 1, . 1 + 2, . 2 ] = 0 (2.30)
2 2 2 2 2
=1

Equations 2.29 and 2.30 can also be combine written as matrix form as given below,
1 1 1

1, 1, 1, 2, 1 1,
2 2 2 2 2
=1 =1 =1
1 1 [22 ] = 1 (2.31)
2
2, 1, 2, 2, 2,
[ =1 2 2
=1
2 2 ] [ =1 2 ]

Where,

1, = [1/ 1/ 0 0] Load vector at 1st reverse cable segment

2

2, = [ 0 0 1/ 1/] Load vector at 2nd reverse cable segment

2

1, = Deflection in the stiffening girder due to 1st reverse cable load vector 1, at
2 2

upward direction in case of NR=2

2, = Deflection in the stiffening girder due to 2nd reverse cable load vector 2, at
2 2

upward direction in case of NR=2

1 = Magnitude of hanger force of 1st reverse cable due to live load P in case of NR=2
2

2 = Magnitude of hanger force of 2nd reverse cable due to live load P in case of NR=2
2

In order to calculate the corrected deflection , substitute the values of 1 & 2 in Equation 2.26
2 2

which was computed by solving equation 2.31.

Similarly, the deflections and hanger forces of reverse cables for different number of

reverse cable up to 10 can be computed due to live load P.

From the above methods, deflections have been calculated for the live load P on the deck.
Theses deflections will be used further to calculate bending moments and shear forces on the
stiffening girder.

Bending Moments in Stiffening Girder:

2
Equation 2.12, = can be transformed into non-dimensional form as
2
 2
=
2

= [1 + 2 +1 ]
2
1
= 2 [1 + 2 +1 ] (2.32)


As per discussed above, deflection are calculated in the form of dimensional-less unit as 3 .

To change the bending moments unit into a dimensionless unit, 3 divided in Equation 2.32.

Hence, the bending moment in stiffening girder can be written as:

1
= 2 [1 + 2 +1 ] (2.33)

Shear Forces in Stiffening Girder:

= =

2
But = ,
2

3
= 3


3 (L) 3
= = 2 (2.34)
3 3 3
[ ()]

But the computed value of deflection is unit less, and therefore to change the unit of shear

forces into a dimensionless form, equation 2.34 should be divided by 3 .

3
= 3

1
= [ 2 1 + 2+1 +2 ] . (2.35)
23 2

Equation 2.35 is valid only for = 3 3, where N is number of beam segments.

For = 2,
 1
= [21 + 2 3 4 ] . (2.36)
23

For = 1,
1
= [ + 2 2 3 ] . (2.37)
23 1

But at = 0, 0 = 0 = 0 = 0
0+1 20 + 1
=0
2

Also 0 = 0 1 + 1 = 0

1 = 1

By substitute 1 = 1 into the Equation 2.37

1
= [1 + 22 3 ] (2.38)
23

For = 0,
1
= [2 + 21 + 21 2 ]
23

Can be written as,

1
= [41 22 ] (2.39)
23

Similarly for = 2, 1 shear force can be computed.

A complete code of FORTRAN Programming for single span suspension bridges with reverse
cables is given in Appendix 2.1

The results obtain from the FORTRAN Programming for single-span suspension bridges with
reverse cables such as, hanger forces, deflections, bending moments and shear forces are given
below which is also validated with the results computed by K.K Borgaonkar in his Ph.D thesis.

2.4 HANGER FORCES OF REVERSE CABLES

 1.8
Elastic Theory (G = -)
1.6 Un-stiffened Theory (G = )
1.4

1.2

1
w L/ P

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L

Figure 2.6: Influence line for hanger forces of Classical suspension bridge (Model 2TH1R)

Figure.2.6 shows the influence line for hanger forces of single-span suspension bridge with 0-
reverse cable (Classical Suspension bridge) as per elastic theory (G = - ) and un-stiffened
theory (G = ). Influence lines for hanger forces for different G values or calculated by
deflection theory are lies between the elastic and un-stiffened theories. Similarly, the influence
lines of hanger forces for more number of reverse cables (from 1 to 10) have been found by
using FORTRAN Program. Figure.2.7 and 2.8 show the shows the influence line for hanger
forces of single-span suspension bridge with 1- reverse cable and 2-reverse cable respectively
as per elastic theory (G = - ) and un-stiffened theory (G = ).
 3
RC1 G= -
2.5 RC1 G=
RC2 G= -
2 RC2 G=
1.5
w L/ P

0.5

-0.5

-1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L

Figure 2.7: Influence line for hanger forces of suspension bridge (Model 2TH2R)

5.00 RC1 G = -
RC1 G =
4.00 RC2 G = -
RC2 G =
3.00 RC3 G = -
RC3 G =
2.00
wL/P

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L

Figure 2.8: Influence line for hanger forces of suspension bridge (Model 2TH3R)

Similar results of hanger forces were also obtained by K.K. Borgaonkar on previous work which
is verified by the results calculated by using FORTRAN Program. All the results of hanger
forces for different reverse cables (1 to 10) are obtained and shown in an Appendix 2.2.

2.5 DEFLECTIONS OF THE STIFFENING GIRDER

The graph of maximum live load deflections of the stiffening girder due to point load P and
patch loads p are presented here to verify with the previous results calculated by K.K.
Borgaonkar. Theses deflections are computed by using influence line diagrams of deflections at
each section of girder. Governing ILD of deflections for point and patch loads for all models are
given in an Appendix 2.3 part (A).
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08 Unstiffened
Theory
0.07
0.07
0.06 0.06
Un-Stiffened Theory
H/PL

0.05 0.05

H/PL
0.04 0.04

0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L x/L

(A) (B)
Figure 2.9: Maximum live load deflections for moving point load P anywhere on the span as per Un-
stiffened theory (A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar

The maximum live load deflections (H/PL-Non-dimensional unit) of the stiffening girder for
moving point load P on the span as per un-stiffened theory are shown in fig 2.9. By comparing
the results from previous work to the present work, it is found that both the results are identical.
Other results are also found for different G values (1 to 14) with different number of reverse
cable (1 to 10). Fig 2.10 & 2.11 shows the maximum live load deflections for point load P and
patch load p with single reverse cable. Two reverse cables results are shown in fig 2.12 & 2.13.
Remaining results for different number of reverse cables are given in an Appendix 2.3 part (B).

0.09 G=
G=14
0.08 G=13
0.07 G=12
G=11
0.06 G=10
H/PL

0.05 G=9
G=8
0.04 G=7
0.03 G=6
G=5
0.02 G=4
0.01 G=3
G=2
0 G=1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
Figure 2.10: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to point load P (Model 2TH1R)
 G=
G=14
0.015 G=13
G=12
G=11
G=10
H/pL2

0.01 G=9
G=8
G=7
G=6
0.005 G=5
G=4
G=3
G=2
0 G=1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
Figure 2.11: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to patch loads (Model 2TH1R)
0.07 G= G=14
G=13 G=12
G=11 G=10
0.06 G=9 G=8
G=7 G=6
G=5 G=4
0.05 G=3 G=2
G=1
0.04
H/PL

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
(A) (B)
Figure 2.12: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to point load P (Model 2TH2R)
(A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar
0.01 G= G=14
G=13 G=12
0.009 G=11 G=10
G=9 G=8
0.008 G=7 G=6
G=5 G=4
0.007 G=3 G=2
G=1
0.006
H/pL2

0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L

(A) (B)
Figure 2.13: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to patch loads (Model 2TH2R)
(A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar
Here it is noticed that, the maximum deflections of stiffening girder, which is calculated from
FORTRAN Programming are identical with the previous results only for classical suspension
bridge (1-Reverse cable) due to point load or patch loads as shown in Figure 9 (A) & (B). But in
case of two or higher number of reverse cables, the results are not precisely matched at the
higher and lower peaks points as shown in Figure 2.12 and 2.13. From the Figure 2.12 (A) &
(B), the maximum live load deflections of the stiffening girder due to point load occur at mid
span but their coefficients are not equivalent, and similarly for other two peak points. Figure 2.13
(B) shows the maximum live load deflections of the stiffening girder due to patch load occur at
0.15 X/L either side of girder but not at mid span, which is not correct in case of 2-reverse cables
where the maximum deflection occur at mid point. Figure 2.13 (A) shows the correct value of
maximum live load deflections in stiffening girder, which is obtained by FORTRAN
Programming.

0.0016 0.0015

Model 2TH
0.0014

Elastic Theory
0.0012

0.001
0.001
EI/PL3

EI/PL3

0.0008

0.0006
0.0005
0.0004

0.0002

0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L x/L
(A) (B)
Figure 2.14: Maximum live load deflections for moving point load P anywhere on the span as per Elastic
theory (Model 2TH1R) (A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar

The maximum live load deflections as Non-dimensional unit as of the stiffening girder for
3

moving point load P on the span as per elastic theory (stiffened theory) are shown in Figure 2.14.
Both the graphs as shown in Figure 2.14 (A) & (B) are identical and the results obtained from
FORTRAN Programming verify the previous results calculated by K.K. Borgaonkar. In case of
elastic theory, the maximum live load deflections of the stiffening girder for higher number of
reverse cable (2 to 10) are identical and exact as compare to previous results as shown in Figure
2.15, which is not in case of un-stiffened theory.

0.0005 0.0005
Model 2TH2R

0.0004
0.0004

0.0003
0.0003
EI/PL3

EI/PL3
0.0002

0.0002
0.0001

0.0001 Elastic Theory

0

0
-0.0001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L x/L
(A) (B)

Figure 2.15: Maximum live load deflections for moving point load P anywhere on the span as per Elastic
theory (Model 2TH2R) (A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar

The above Figure 2.14 and 2.15 shows the maximum live load deflection due to point load P for
1 and 2 reverse cables case as per elastic theory. Some of the results due to point & patch loads
and for different G values are shown below. All the results related to deflection of the stiffening
girder are given in an Appendix 2.3 part (C).

1.6E-3
G=-
G=1
1.4E-3
G=2
G=3
1.2E-3
G=4
G=5
1.0E-3
G=6
EI/PL3

G=7
8.0E-4
G=8
G=9
6.0E-4
G=10
G=11
4.0E-4
G=12
2.0E-4 G=13
G=14
0.0E+0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.5 0.60.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
Figure 2.16: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to point load P (Model 2TH1R)
 4.5E-4 G=-
4.0E-4 G=1
G=2
3.5E-4 G=3
G=4
3.0E-4 G=5
EI/pL4

2.5E-4 G=6
G=7
2.0E-4 G=8
G=9
1.5E-4 G=10
1.0E-4 G=11
G=12
5.0E-5 G=13
G=14
0.0E+0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
Figure 2.17: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to patch loads (Model 2TH1R)

5.0E-4 G=-
G=1
G=2
4.0E-4 G=3
G=4
G=5
3.0E-4 G=6
EI/PL3

G=7
G=8
2.0E-4 G=9
G=10
G=11
1.0E-4 G=12
G=13
G=14
0.0E+0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
Figure 2.18: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to point load P (Model 2TH2R)

1.2E-4 G=-
G=1
G=2
1.0E-4 G=3
G=4
8.0E-5 G=5
G=6
EI/pL4

G=7
6.0E-5 G=8
G=9
4.0E-5 G=10
G=11
G=12
2.0E-5 G=13
G=14
0.0E+0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
Figure 2.19: Maximum live load deflections of stiffening girder due to patch loads (Model 2TH2R)
2.6 BENDING MOMENTS OF THE STIFFENING GIRDER
Maximum bending moments coefficients of the stiffening girder due to point load P and patch
load p are presented here to compare with the previous results. A similar approach is also used
here to calculate maximum bending moments coefficients of the stiffening girder by using
influence line diagram of bending moments at each section of girder.
0.09 G=- Model 2TH: Maximum Bending Moment Coefficients
G=1 0.09
0.08 G=2
G=3 0.08
0.07 G=4
G=5 0.07
G=6
0.06
G=7 0.06
G = -
G=8 G=1
0.05 G=2
M/PL

G=9 0.05 G=3

G=4

M/PL
G=10
0.04 G=11 G=5
0.04
G=12 G=6
0.03 G=13
0.03 G=7
G=14
0.02 G=8
0.02 G=9
G = 10
0.01 0.01

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/L x/L
(A) (B)

Figure 2.20: Maximum Bending moment coefficients for moving point load P anywhere on the span
(Model 2TH1R) (A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar

0.06
G=-
G=1
G=2
0.05 G=3
G=4
G=5
G=6
0.04 G=7
G=8
G=9
G=10
M/PL

0.03 G=11
G=12
G=13
G=14
0.02

0.01

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L
(A) (B)

Figure 2.21: Maximum Bending moment coefficients for moving point load P anywhere on the span
(Model 2TH2R) (A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar
The graph of the maximum bending moment coefficients due to point load P are shown identical
in Figure 2.20 (A) & (B) for 1-reverse cable (classical suspension bridge). Also for 2-reverse
cables case, FORTRAN Programming and previous results of the maximum bending moment
coefficients are identical and verifies to each other as shown in Figure 2.21 (A) and (B).
0.018 G=- Model 2TH: Maximum Bending Moment Coefficients
G=1 0.018
0.016 G=2 G = -
G=3 0.016 G=1
G=4 G=2
0.014 G=5
G=6 0.014 G=3
0.012 G=7 G=4
G=8 0.012
G=9
0.01
M/pL2

G=10 0.01

2
G=11

M/pL
G=5
0.008 G=12
G=13 0.008

0.006 G=14
0.006 G=6

0.004
0.004 G=7
0.002 G=8
0.002
G=9
0 G = 10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/L x/L
(A) (B)

Figure 2.22: Maximum Bending moment coefficients due to patch loads (Model 2TH1R)
(A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar

0.008 G=-
G=1
0.007 G=2
G=3
G=4
0.006 G=5
G=6
G=7
0.005 G=8
G=9
M/pL2

G=10
0.004 G=11
G=12
G=13
0.003 G=14

0.002

0.001

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
X/L

(A) (B)

Figure 2.23: Maximum Bending moment coefficients due to patch loads (Model 2TH2R)
(A) by FORTRAN Program (B) by K.K. Borgaonkar

Similarly, for patch loads p, the maximum bending moment coefficients for 1 and 2 reverse
cables are matched with the previous results as shown in Figure 2.22 and 2.23. Remaining results
of governing influence line diagram for bending moments and maximum bending moment
coefficients are given an Appendix 2.4 part (A) and part (B) respectively.
2.7 MODE SHAPES AND FREQUENCIES OF VIBRATION
Mode shapes and frequencies of vibration in the single span suspension bridge for different
number of reverse cables are obtained numerically by the finite difference method using iterative
procedure. Six mode shapes are obtained for each number of reverse cables by FORTRAN
Programming. To compute all mode shapes, it is assumed that the stiffening girder and all cables
(main cables, ties & reverse cables) undergo the same vertical deflection during vibration. Here,
it is also assumed that the all cables are inextensible. From the previous study, it was found that
the mode shapes did not depend on the value of steinmans parameter, but on the number of
reverse cables. Previously only two mode shapes were obtained by numerically for each case of
reverse cables. To calculate higher mode shapes and corresponding vibration frequencies, a
sinusoidal harmonics were developed which was numerically fitted with results obtained from
STAAD Pro. The mode shapes of torsional vibration shall be the same as the vertical vibration,
but in case of torsional vibration the movements in the two planes of the main cable shall be 180-
degree out of phase with each other.

To get the mode shapes and vibration frequencies by numerically, a programming has been done
on FORTRAN Program and earlier mention assumptions are also applied here. The modal
analysis problem in structural dynamics can be stated as follows:

= 2 (2.40)

Where, = the stiffness matrix, = the mass matrix, = the unknown mode shape of unit

magnitude that satisfies the Equation 2.40 and = the corresponding modal frequency. Stodola
or inverse iteration method can be used to solve this modal analysis problem. In these methods, a
()
unit magnitude of mode shape is chosen as trial mode, and by solving the equation
(+1) () (+1)
= the next mode shape is obtained and then it is normalized by dividing
(+1)
(+1) (+1) (+1)
it by ( ) , i.e., =
. From that it converses into the first
( (+1) ) (+1)

mode shape, . To get second converged mode shape , the deflection , calculated after each
1 2

iteration are purified of the first mode shape by using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization
1
()
process, i.e., = ( ) . Here the mass has been assumed to be uniformly distributed
1 1

therefore mass matrix can be taken as the Identity matrix.

From the previous work, K.K. Borgaonkar has given close forms solution for higher mode shape
in form of sinusoidal harmonics equations as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: First Six Mode Shape Close Forms for 1 to 10 Reverse Cable

Close forms for mode shapes: sin sin ; Values of , are given

simultaneously, e. g.,0, 2 and A and S are asymmetric and symmetric, respectively.

Model Model Model Model Model

Mode
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R

1 0, 2 A 1, 3 S 2, 4 A 3, 5 S 4, 6 A
2 1, 3 S 0, 4 A 1, 5 S 2, 6 A 3, 7 S
3 0, 4 A S 0, 6 A 1, 7 S 2, 8 A
4 S 2, 6 A S 0, 8 A 1, 9 S
5 0, 6 A S A S 0, 10 A
6 S 0, 8 A 3, 9 S A S
3 5 7 9
9 + 3 50 , 49 + 7 450

5 7 2 6 10
25 + 5 182 9 + 3 50

2 4 8 9 11
2 + 10 81 + 9 902

3 5 7
225 + 75 + 45 1813

Model Model Model Model Model

Mode
2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R

1 5, 7 S 6, 8 A 7, 9 S 8, 10 A 9, 11 S
2 4, 8 A 5, 9 S 6, 10 A 7, 11 S 8, 12 A
3 3, 9 S 4, 10 A 5, 11 S 6, 12 A 7, 13 S
4 2, 10 A 3, 11 S 4, 12 A 5, 13 S 6, 14 A
5 1, 11 S 2, 12 A 3, 13 S 4, 14 A 5, 15 S
6 0, 12 A 1, 13 S 2, 14 A 3, 15 S 4, 16 A

By using those sinusoidal harmonics equations, all six mode shapes and corresponding vibration
frequencies for are obtained for all number of reverse cables. All those results are checked and
verified with the numerically found mode shapes and vibration frequencies by FORTRAN
Programming. For 1 and 2 reverse cables case, all six mode shapes and vibration frequencies are
presented and verified here.

Table 2.2: Mode Shapes comparison between Numerical Vs Close Forms for 1-reverse Cable
(classical suspension bridge)

All six mode shapes for 1-reverse cable (Model 2TH1R- classical suspension bridge)

By FORTRAN Programming By K.K. Borgaonkar

(By Numerically) (By Close Form)

1.5 1.5
Mode 1 Mode 1
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1 1
Mode 2 Mode 2
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1.5 1.5
Mode 3 Mode 3
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.2
Mode 4 Mode 4
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0
0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1
 1.5 1.5
Mode 5 Mode 5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1 1
Mode 6 Mode 6
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
-0.25 -0.25
-0.5 -0.5
-0.75 -0.75
-1 -1
-1.25 -1.25
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

Table 2.3: Mode Shapes comparison between Numerical Vs Close Forms for 2-reverse Cable

All six mode shapes for 2-reverse cable (Model 2TH2R)

By FORTRAN Programming By K.K. Borgaonkar

(By Numerically) (by Close Form)
1.2 1.2
1 Mode 1 1 Mode 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1.5 1.5
1 Mode 2 1 Mode 2
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1 1
0.75 Mode 3 0.75 Mode 3
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
-0.25 -0.25
-0.5 -0.5
-0.75 -0.75
-1 -1
-1.25 -1.25
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1
 1.5 1.5
Mode 4 Mode 4
1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1 1
Mode 5 Mode 5
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25
0 0
-0.25 -0.25
-0.5 -0.5
-0.75 -0.75
-1 -1
-1.25 -1.25
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

1.5 1.5
Mode 6 Mode 6
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1.5 -1.5
0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 X/L 0.6 0.8 1

The above Table 2.2 and 2.3 gives the mode shapes comparison between Numerical Vs Close
Forms for model 2TH1R and 2TH2R respectively. Six mode shapes are generated by
FORTRAN Programming and compare it with Close Form solution given by K.K. Borgaonkar.
The shapes are identical and hard to variations therefore, vibration frequencies are needed to be
calculated.

The Rayleighs quotient method is used to find the corresponding natural frequencies in terms of
generalized stiffness, geometrical stiffness and mass matrices (Clough and Penzien, 2003) as
follows:

+
2 = (2.41)

Or,
2 2
2 1
0 ( 2 ) + 0 ( 1 )

12 = (2.42)
0 (1 )2
 2 2
2
0 ( 22 ) + 0 ( 2 )

22 = (2.42)
0 (2 )2
Where,

= Inertial mass of the bridge over per unit length for vertical vibrations. It includes the mass
of stiffening girder and all the cables excluding wind-guy cables.

= Horizontal tension of main and reverse cables. Horizontal tension on Wind-guy cables does
not included.
Writing Equations (2.42) in normalized form:
2 2
1 2 1
3 0 ( 2 ) + 0 ( )

2 = 1 (2.43)
0 ()2

2
= 1 1 + 2 = 3 1 + 4 (2.44)
2 2 4

1 2
= 1 + ()2 = ()2 1 + (2.50)
2 2 ()2 4

1 2
= 1 1 + (2 )2 2
= (3 )2 1 + (2.44)
2 2
(4 ) 4

Where, 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 are coefficients as follows:

2 2 2
1 1
( ) 0 ( 2 ) 1
1 = 0 = 3 4
1 ; 2 = 2 =
0 ()2 1 4
0 ( )

(2.45)
2 2
1 2 1
0 ( 2 ) 0 ( ) 1

3 = 1 = 1 2 ; 4 = 2 =
0 ()2 1 2 2
0 ( 2 )
}

The coefficients a1 , a2 , a3 and a4 for all six modes of vibration are shown in Table 2.4 and 2.5
for their corresponding mode shapes for model 2TH1R and 2TH2R respectively. There are very
small variations in model frequencies between two methods as numerical and close form
solution. Hence, from given mode shapes and their corresponding vibration of frequencies, it is
concluded that the close form solution gives the accurate results as numerical method. Similar
comparison between results of FORTRAN Programming and Close Form solution for different
number of reverse cables are given in an Appendix 2.5.

Table 2.4: Vibration Frequency Coefficient of mode shapes of Model 2TH1R

Mode By FORTRAN Programming By K.K. Borgaonkar

(By Numerically) (by Close Form)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 6.265464 39.26199 39.25901 0.02547 6.265464 39.26199 39.25901 0.02547

2 8.960953 88.25991 84.18524 0.01133 8.970224 87.38717 83.85465 0.011443

3 12.52903 157.0717 157.0242 0.006367 12.52903 157.0717 157.0242 0.006367

4 15.40292 245.4086 241.2948 0.004075 15.40496 244.9445 241.0985 0.004083

5 18.7888 353.5007 353.2598 0.002829 18.7888 353.5007 353.2598 0.002829

6 21.7345 481.1996 476.7736 0.002078 21.73518 480.8868 476.6337 0.002079

Vibration Frequency Coefficient of mode shapes of Model 2TH2R

Mode By FORTRAN Programming By K.K. Borgaonkar

(By Numerically) (by Close Form)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 8.961021 88.24345 84.17802 0.011332 8.970224 87.38717 83.85465 0.011443

2 12.52903 157.0717 157.0242 0.006367 12.52903 157.0717 157.0242 0.006367

3 15.40305 245.3925 241.2889 0.004075 15.40496 244.9445 241.0985 0.004083

4 17.9169 353.0114 336.6333 0.002833 17.9344 349.6654 335.3615 0.00286

5 21.73465 481.1829 476.7688 0.002078 21.73518 480.8868 476.6337 0.002079

6 25.04288 628.6678 627.9064 0.001591 25.04288 628.6678 627.9064 0.001591

The natural frequency of corresponding mode shapes are depended on value of

1 , 2 , 3 and 4 which is difficult to understand and relates with the mode shapes. Each mode
shape has different number of bulbs and it increases by one in each mode shape number.
Therefore it is easy to relate the natural frequency with the number of bulbs of its corresponding
mode shape; hence an approximate solution is given here to calculate the natural frequencies.
Clough and Penzien (2003) have given the equation of motion of flexural beam including axial
tension . Equation of motion of flexural beam alone is given as:

2 2 (, ) 2 (, )
[() ] + () =0 (2.46)
2 2 2

Include the effect of horizontal tension () in equation 2.46

2 2 (, ) (, ) 2 (, )
[() ] [() ] + () =0 (2.47)
2 2 2

Take EI =constant, H= constant horizontal tension, constant mass per unit length and assume
the mode shape of flexural beam under constant horizontal tension as sinusoidal form as

= sin sin

Therefore, by solving the Equation 2.47

4 2
( ) + ( ) 2 = 0 (2.48)

2
2 = () 4
+ ( ) ()2 (2.49)
4 2

By simplifying the Equation 2.49, it can be written as

2 2 1 2
= 1 + 2 = 2 1 + 2
(2.50)
2 2 2 4

Where n = number of bulbs in mode shapes over the span length L. Equation 2.44 gives the
accurate natural frequency whereas; Equation 2.50 gives the approximate natural frequency for
corresponding mode shapes. Equation 2.50 gives the almost accurate value of natural frequency
if the mode shape is close to the sinusoidal shape. Overall in this equation, the calculation of
natural frequency may be approximate but it can be used as first hand to calculate the natural
frequency using number of bulbs in corresponding mode shapes.

2.8 DESIGN CHARTS FOR GOVERNING PARAMETERS

 For preliminary design of single span suspension bridges with reverse cables, the design chart for
governing deflections, bending moments and shear forces are given below in form of tables and
graphs. All the design parameters are calculated for different G (1 to 14) values with various
number of reverse (1 to 10) cables due to point load, patch loads and single patch load. Design
charts for governing deflections and bending moments due single patch load and for shear forces
are not calculated in previous work which is included here.

Table 2.6: Governing Downward Deflection, for a point load as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 105 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R* 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
1 275.43 98.47 37.83 19.75 10.55 6.34 3.94 2.72 1.91 1.40
2 541.07 198.41 76.99 40.36 21.62 13.02 8.09 5.59 3.94 2.88
3 1017.62 390.97 154.70 81.78 44.04 26.61 16.58 11.47 8.08 5.91
4 1780.59 739.34 303.26 162.88 88.66 53.90 33.73 23.40 16.53 12.10
5 2813.98 1304.60 568.35 314.13 174.42 107.30 67.73 47.24 33.51 24.62
6 3960.74 2083.62 989.61 572.60 329.04 206.77 132.66 93.48 66.84 49.38
7 5022.21 2962.79 1555.73 957.45 579.15 376.65 248.38 178.18 129.25 96.54
8 5892.28 3784.81 2181.33 1434.84 924.44 629.90 432.43 318.96 236.86 180.18
9 6563.41 4457.83 2758.97 1923.44 1318.71 945.94 681.56 521.17 399.71 312.29
10 7066.55 4969.67 3229.37 2350.78 1694.95 1273.06 961.25 763.35 607.05 489.71
11 7435.58 5344.78 3586.60 2688.72 2009.30 1562.82 1225.40 1005.22 826.21 687.49
12 7701.94 5614.57 3848.93 2941.91 2252.02 1794.39 1445.21 1214.30 1023.75 873.43
13 7892.38 5806.83 4037.98 3126.60 2431.99 1969.34 1614.97 1379.32 1183.59 1027.93
14 8028.04 5943.43 4173.20 3259.70 2562.91 2097.96 1741.26 1503.50 1305.50 1147.49
8333.21 6249.53 4478.25 3562.66 2863.94 2396.95 2038.24 1798.69 1598.77 1438.82
*(2TH1R = 2TH0R or Classical Suspension Bridge)
 0.09
R1
0.08 R2
0.07 R3
R4
0.06
R5
H / PL

0.05 R6
0.04 R7
R8
0.03 R9
0.02 R10

0.01
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.24: Governing Downward Deflection HPL for a Point Load P as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.7: Governing Downward Deflection, 3 for a point load as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 3 106 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 1401.64 488.31 185.77 96.59 51.47 30.90 19.17 13.23 9.31 6.80
1 1336.41 477.77 183.55 95.82 51.19 30.78 19.11 13.20 9.29 6.79
2 1273.80 467.10 181.25 95.02 50.90 30.65 19.05 13.17 9.27 6.77
3 1162.39 446.60 176.71 93.41 50.31 30.39 18.93 13.10 9.24 6.75
4 986.85 409.76 168.08 90.28 49.14 29.87 18.69 12.97 9.16 6.71
5 756.71 350.82 152.84 84.47 46.90 28.85 18.21 12.70 9.01 6.62
6 516.78 271.86 129.12 74.71 42.93 26.98 17.31 12.20 8.72 6.44
7 317.94 187.57 98.49 60.61 36.66 23.84 15.72 11.28 8.18 6.11
8 180.99 116.26 67.00 44.07 28.40 19.35 13.28 9.80 7.28 5.53
9 97.82 66.44 41.12 28.67 19.65 14.10 10.16 7.77 5.96 4.65
10 51.10 35.94 23.35 17.00 12.26 9.21 6.95 5.52 4.39 3.54
11 26.09 18.75 12.58 9.43 7.05 5.48 4.30 3.53 2.90 2.41
12 13.11 9.56 6.55 5.01 3.83 3.05 2.46 2.07 1.74 1.49
13 6.52 4.80 3.34 2.58 2.01 1.63 1.33 1.14 0.98 0.85
14 3.22 2.38 1.67 1.31 1.03 0.84 0.70 0.60 0.52 0.46
 R1
R2
2.0E-3 R3
R4
R5
2.0E-4 R6
EI/PL3

R7
R8
2.0E-5 R9
R10

2.0E-6

2.0E-7
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.25: Governing Downward Deflection EIPL3 for a Point Load P as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.8: Governing Upward Deflection, for a point load as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 105 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
1 239.06 58.92 28.21 13.32 7.55 4.46 2.80 1.93 1.36 0.99
2 467.38 118.66 57.33 27.20 15.45 9.16 5.74 3.96 2.80 2.04
3 870.78 233.59 114.87 55.06 31.44 18.70 11.75 8.12 5.74 4.19
4 1497.1 440.78 223.88 109.41 63.14 37.82 23.88 16.56 11.72 8.57
5 2294.8 774.57 415.00 210.15 123.60 75.05 47.84 33.37 23.72 17.41
6 3082.1 1226. 709.32 379.98 230.95 143.72 93.25 65.76 47.14 34.84
7 3674.4 1716.7 1083.9 626.59 399.68 258.85 172.93 124.36 90.50 67.77
8 4026.6 2133.5 1463.7 919.18 622.49 425.17 295.94 219.41 163.82 125.28
9 4205.1 2417.4 1771.0 1195.8 859.24 621.35 455.40 351.11 271.63 213.43
10 4289.6 2580.2 1976.7 1407.7 1061.5 808.15 621.20 499.13 401.04 325.89
11 4329.1 2664.0 2096.2 1544.3 1204.9 953.07 762.54 633.72 527.36 443.64
12 4347.8 2705.0 2159.5 1622.2 1291.9 1047.7 860.58 734.15 627.49 540.96
13 4356.6 2724.8 2191.1 1662.8 1339.8 1101.8 920.24 797.02 693.07 609.27
14 4360.9 2734.3 2206.6 1683.0 1364.4 1130.5 952.99 832.80 731.89 651.27
4364.8 2743.1 2221.0 1701.9 1387.7 1158.4 985.59 869.53 772.80 696.37
 0.05
R1
0.045 R2
0.04 R3
R4
0.035 R5
0.03 R6
H/PL

R7
0.025 R8
0.02 R9
R10
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G
Figure 2.26: Governing Upward Deflection HPL for a Point Load P as per Deflection Theory (Models
2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.9: Governing Upward Deflection, 3 for a point load as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 3 106 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 1222.22 292.33 138.74 65.17 36.83 21.75 13.61 9.38 6.61 4.82
1 1159.93 285.88 136.89 64.62 36.61 21.66 13.56 9.36 6.60 4.81
2 1100.32 279.34 134.98 64.04 36.38 21.56 13.52 9.33 6.58 4.80
3 994.66 266.82 131.21 62.89 35.92 21.36 13.42 9.28 6.55 4.78
4 829.77 244.29 124.08 60.64 34.99 20.96 13.24 9.18 6.50 4.75
5 617.11 208.29 111.60 56.51 33.24 20.18 12.87 8.97 6.38 4.68
6 402.15 160.07 92.55 49.58 30.13 18.75 12.17 8.58 6.15 4.55
7 232.62 108.68 68.62 39.67 25.30 16.39 10.95 7.87 5.73 4.29
8 123.69 65.54 44.96 28.23 19.12 13.06 9.09 6.74 5.03 3.85
9 62.67 36.03 26.40 17.82 12.81 9.26 6.79 5.23 4.05 3.18
10 31.02 18.66 14.29 10.18 7.68 5.84 4.49 3.61 2.90 2.36
11 15.19 9.35 7.35 5.42 4.23 3.34 2.68 2.22 1.85 1.56
12 7.40 4.61 3.68 2.76 2.20 1.78 1.47 1.25 1.07 0.92
13 3.60 2.25 1.81 1.37 1.11 0.91 0.76 0.66 0.57 0.50
 14 1.75 1.10 0.88 0.67 0.55 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.26

R1
R2
R3
1.0E-3 R4
R5
R6
1.0E-4 R7
EI/PL3

R8
R9
1.0E-5 R10

1.0E-6

1.0E-7
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.27: Governing Upward Deflection EIPL3 for a Point Load P as per Deflection Theory (Models
2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.10: Governing Sagging Bending Moment for a point load as per deflection theory

Live Load Bending Moment Parameter 105 for Number of Reverse cables
G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 8576.36 5468.46 3969.08 3190.03 2592.06 2191.14 1869.57 1652.33 1469.45 1323.03
1 8302.12 5388.71 3937.71 3173.44 2582.98 2185.57 1866.08 1649.91 1467.74 1321.78
2 8037.34 5307.69 3905.21 3156.12 2573.44 2179.71 1862.40 1647.35 1465.93 1320.46
3 7562.43 5151.35 3840.69 3121.29 2554.12 2167.77 1854.87 1642.11 1462.23 1317.75
4 6799.97 4867.69 3717.18 3053.03 2515.67 2143.80 1839.66 1631.48 1454.69 1312.21
5 5761.97 4404.74 3496.18 2925.52 2441.72 2096.88 1809.51 1610.24 1439.53 1301.02
6 4595.14 3759.67 3143.07 2706.84 2308.23 2009.45 1751.94 1569.07 1409.79 1278.88
7 3491.35 3017.99 2664.51 2379.07 2092.01 1860.01 1649.35 1493.68 1354.14 1236.75
8 2566.04 2334.75 2126.95 1967.62 1791.80 1636.70 1486.13 1368.43 1258.25 1162.11
9 1845.87 1742.94 1618.92 1538.68 1445.13 1356.47 1264.70 1188.42 1113.18 1044.29
10 1309.77 1265.88 1207.71 1154.49 1108.44 1063.19 1014.42 971.94 928.06 885.95
11 921.21 903.16 878.05 849.67 820.90 798.90 774.88 753.51 730.86 708.43
12 643.84 636.63 626.23 613.95 600.63 586.75 580.89 561.51 550.47 539.42
13 447.39 444.58 440.35 435.27 429.72 423.63 422.00 410.52 404.02 396.96
14 308.53 307.45 305.78 303.78 301.46 298.97 298.89 293.41 290.54 287.41

0.1
R1
0.09
R2
0.08
R3
0.07 R4
0.06 R5
M/PL

R6
0.05
R7
0.04
R8
0.03 R9
0.02 R10
0.01
0
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.28: Governing Sagging Bending Moments MPL for a Point Load P as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.11: Governing Hogging Bending Moment for a point load as per deflection theory

Live Load Bending Moment Parameter 105 for Number of Reverse cables
G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 4429.47 2973.93 2151.32 1640.04 1317.21 1099.70 954.11 826.36 735.82 662.27
1 4198.16 2909.21 2127.11 1629.21 1311.47 1096.37 951.89 824.92 734.82 661.53
2 3977.40 2843.51 2102.03 1617.88 1305.44 1092.87 949.55 823.41 733.77 660.75
3 3587.67 2718.05 2052.20 1595.04 1293.33 1085.71 944.76 820.31 731.62 659.14
4 2983.21 2492.67 1957.22 1550.01 1269.28 1071.28 935.04 814.00 727.22 655.85
5 2212.32 2131.75 1788.68 1465.26 1222.56 1042.76 915.66 801.31 718.32 649.17
6 1441.78 1647.53 1523.38 1319.49 1136.77 989.27 878.23 776.73 700.69 635.85
7 836.55 1127.76 1174.72 1099.49 996.68 896.25 810.99 731.42 667.05 610.91
8 444.28 685.31 805.29 826.30 799.34 754.23 702.81 654.08 607.70 565.56
9 222.73 377.02 491.32 551.60 574.33 573.95 558.81 539.51 515.94 491.76
10 108.67 193.09 271.60 328.99 366.64 388.67 399.38 401.21 398.03 390.71
11 52.70 95.01 139.65 178.67 210.33 234.76 253.60 265.22 273.22 277.53
12 25.55 46.14 68.85 90.84 110.99 128.79 144.83 156.82 167.18 175.70
13 12.39 22.38 33.45 44.56 55.47 65.90 76.18 84.60 92.70 99.97
14 6.01 10.85 16.22 21.63 27.04 32.42 38.01 42.83 47.76 52.43

0.05
R1
0.045 R2
0.04 R3
0.035 R4
R5
0.03
R6
M/PL

0.025 R7
0.02 R8
0.015 R9
R10
0.01
0.005
0
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.29: Governing Hogging Bending Moments MPL for a Point Load P as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.12: Governing Deflection, 2 for patch loads as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 2 105 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
1 80.10 21.83 7.35 3.40 1.62 0.88 0.49 0.31 0.20 0.13
2 156.85 43.91 14.93 6.94 3.31 1.81 1.01 0.64 0.41 0.27
3 293.14 86.23 29.89 14.03 6.72 3.70 2.06 1.30 0.83 0.56
4 506.85 161.98 58.21 27.82 13.47 7.46 4.18 2.65 1.70 1.14
5 784.52 282.26 107.69 53.13 26.27 14.73 8.34 5.32 3.42 2.31
6 1068.95 441.01 183.31 95.11 48.71 27.97 16.12 10.40 6.76 4.58
7 1297.45 605.90 277.98 154.15 83.19 49.55 29.44 19.38 12.82 8.81
8 1446.92 739.14 370.74 220.41 126.64 79.21 49.12 33.38 22.68 15.93
9 1531.03 826.26 442.09 278.10 169.50 111.50 72.69 51.33 36.18 26.22
10 1574.13 875.39 487.25 318.11 202.62 138.87 94.65 69.45 50.87 38.16
11 1595.27 900.86 512.38 341.51 223.58 157.47 110.90 83.78 63.37 48.98
12 1605.50 913.58 525.38 353.83 235.14 168.29 120.84 93.01 71.87 56.84
13 1610.46 919.85 531.91 359.93 241.04 173.88 126.23 98.22 76.88 61.58
14 1612.87 922.92 535.16 362.91 243.93 176.64 128.94 100.86 79.48 64.11
1615.14 925.84 538.29 365.74 246.67 179.27 131.47 103.33 81.94 66.60

1.E-02

1.E-03
H/pL2

R1
R2
1.E-04 R3
R4
R5
R6
1.E-05 R7
R8
R9
1.E-06 R10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.30: Governing Deflection 2 for patch loads of intensity p as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.13: Governing Deflection, 4 for patch loads as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 4 107 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 4088.84 1084.08 361.36 166.55 78.90 43.10 23.93 15.06 9.60 6.42
1 3886.41 1059.00 356.47 165.04 78.39 42.89 23.84 15.02 9.58 6.41
2 3692.56 1033.62 351.42 163.46 77.86 42.67 23.75 14.97 9.55 6.39
3 3348.41 984.94 341.46 160.30 76.78 42.23 23.56 14.87 9.51 6.37
4 2809.09 897.73 322.59 154.16 74.66 41.34 23.18 14.68 9.40 6.31
5 2109.66 759.04 289.59 142.87 70.63 39.62 22.43 14.30 9.20 6.20
6 1394.72 575.41 239.18 124.10 63.55 36.49 21.04 13.57 8.82 5.98
7 821.38 383.58 175.98 97.59 52.66 31.37 18.64 12.27 8.11 5.58
8 444.45 227.04 113.88 67.70 38.90 24.33 15.09 10.25 6.97 4.89
9 228.18 123.14 65.89 41.45 25.26 16.62 10.83 7.65 5.39 3.91
10 113.83 63.30 35.23 23.00 14.65 10.04 6.84 5.02 3.68 2.76
11 55.97 31.61 17.98 11.98 7.84 5.53 3.89 2.94 2.22 1.72
12 27.33 15.55 8.94 6.02 4.00 2.87 2.06 1.58 1.22 0.97
13 13.30 7.60 4.39 2.97 1.99 1.44 1.04 0.81 0.64 0.51
14 6.46 3.70 2.14 1.45 0.98 0.71 0.52 0.40 0.32 0.26
1.0E-03 R1
R2
R3
1.0E-04 R4
R5
R6
R7
1.0E-05 R8
EI/pL4

R9
R10
1.0E-06

1.0E-07

1.0E-08
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.31: Governing Deflection 4 for patch loads of intensity p as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.14: Governing Bending Moment for patch loads as per deflection theory

Live Load Bending Moment Parameter 2 105 for Number of Reverse cables
G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 1654.57 777.42 445.80 303.49 216.44 163.15 123.66 98.91 79.41 65.26
1 1576.29 760.80 439.86 300.78 215.06 162.38 123.22 98.62 79.23 65.14
2 1501.38 744.00 433.72 297.95 213.62 161.56 122.75 98.32 79.03 65.00
3 1368.41 711.79 421.65 292.28 210.72 159.91 121.79 97.70 78.63 64.73
4 1160.07 653.91 398.80 281.25 204.98 156.62 119.86 96.46 77.82 64.17
5 889.25 561.42 361.44 260.97 194.11 150.25 116.08 93.99 76.20 63.06
6 609.66 437.67 305.12 227.43 175.06 138.63 108.99 89.28 73.07 60.89
7 378.80 305.45 233.02 180.30 145.82 119.72 96.89 80.98 67.37 56.90
8 218.43 192.89 159.57 128.20 109.02 93.71 79.00 68.06 58.13 50.15
9 119.33 112.82 99.42 84.85 72.63 65.28 57.58 51.45 45.47 40.35
10 62.73 62.38 57.70 51.57 45.70 40.89 37.48 34.61 31.67 29.02
11 32.09 33.10 31.78 29.41 26.96 24.68 22.44 21.12 19.85 18.66
12 16.11 17.06 16.83 16.01 15.07 14.14 13.21 12.45 11.70 11.03
13 7.99 8.61 8.67 8.42 8.08 7.73 7.36 7.06 6.76 6.47
14 3.93 4.28 4.37 4.31 4.20 4.07 3.97 3.85 3.73 3.62

R1
1.2E-2 R2
R3
R4
2.4E-3 R5
R6
R7
M/pL2

R8
4.8E-4 R9
R10

9.5E-5

1.9E-5
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.32: Governing Bending Moments 2 for patch loads of intensity p as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.15: Governing Shear Force for patch loads as per deflection theory

Live Load Shear Force Parameter 2 104 for Number of Reverse cables
G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 1502.06 1100.31 862.19 690.34 564.97 472.70 400.27 350.55 310.60 282.64
1 1454.46 1084.27 854.80 686.49 562.78 471.36 399.43 349.97 310.24 282.37
2 1408.68 1068.03 847.16 682.47 560.48 469.95 398.54 349.35 309.86 282.08
3 1326.78 1036.68 832.07 674.39 555.84 467.08 396.73 348.08 309.09 281.48
4 1196.09 979.93 803.31 658.56 546.59 461.36 393.06 345.52 307.51 280.25
5 1018.81 887.63 752.28 629.12 528.85 450.22 385.80 340.40 304.32 277.78
6 818.90 759.48 671.90 578.98 497.05 429.49 371.98 330.52 298.04 272.87
7 626.86 611.94 564.99 504.87 446.14 394.21 347.61 313.06 286.19 263.48
8 462.00 468.55 447.40 413.30 377.04 342.42 309.42 286.87 265.51 246.87
9 330.43 344.68 337.39 319.46 299.13 278.95 262.14 248.87 234.01 220.66
10 230.38 245.27 244.72 235.91 225.00 218.85 210.29 202.61 193.74 185.38
11 156.80 169.39 171.49 167.64 165.86 164.36 159.98 155.97 151.04 146.31
12 104.05 113.54 116.20 118.91 118.85 118.82 116.72 114.70 112.02 109.57
13 67.04 75.66 79.07 81.82 82.40 82.93 82.07 81.12 79.85 78.52
14 41.67 49.98 52.51 54.58 55.27 55.90 55.64 55.28 54.66 54.09

0.16
R1
0.14 R2
R3
0.12
R4
0.1 R5
V/pL2

R6
0.08
R7
0.06 R8
R9
0.04
R10
0.02

0
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.33: Governing Shear Forces VpL2 for patch loads of intensity p as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.16: Governing Deflection, 2 for Single patch load as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 2 105 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
1 80.10 21.83 6.07 2.54 1.10 0.56 0.29 0.18 0.11 0.07
2 156.85 43.91 12.34 5.20 2.25 1.14 0.60 0.37 0.23 0.15
3 293.14 86.23 24.75 10.51 4.58 2.33 1.24 0.76 0.47 0.31
4 506.85 161.98 48.30 20.88 9.21 4.71 2.52 1.54 0.97 0.64
5 784.52 282.26 89.77 40.02 18.03 9.35 5.04 3.11 1.96 1.30
6 1068.95 441.01 153.94 72.12 33.73 17.91 9.82 6.12 3.90 2.59
7 1297.45 605.90 235.95 118.16 58.46 32.21 18.21 11.58 7.49 5.05
8 1446.92 739.14 318.52 171.49 90.93 52.75 31.15 20.44 13.57 9.33
 9 1531.03 826.26 383.79 219.95 124.84 76.62 47.75 32.59 22.42 15.88
10 1574.13 875.39 425.98 255.08 152.76 98.57 64.66 46.02 32.95 24.18
11 1595.27 900.86 449.67 276.39 171.49 114.68 78.38 57.78 42.91 32.56
12 1605.50 913.58 461.92 287.91 182.25 124.65 87.42 66.06 50.37 39.32
13 1610.46 919.85 468.07 293.73 187.90 130.03 92.62 71.04 55.11 43.73
14 1612.87 922.92 471.12 296.60 190.72 132.76 95.33 73.68 57.70 46.23
1615.14 925.84 474.07 299.38 193.43 135.45 97.97 76.29 60.29 48.85
Avg. X/L
(Length of 0.45 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.094 0.085
single patch)

1.E-01

1.E-02

1.E-03
H/pL2

R1
1.E-04 R2
R3
R4
1.E-05 R5
R6
R7
1.E-06 R8
R9
R10
1.E-07
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.34: Governing Deflection HpL2 for Single patch load of intensity p as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.17: Governing Deflection, 4 for Single patch load as per deflection theory

Live Load Deflection Parameter 4 107 for Number of Reverse cables

G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 4088.84 1084.08 298.41 124.53 53.66 27.12 14.33 8.73 5.46 3.59
1 3886.41 1059.00 294.54 123.46 53.35 27.00 14.29 8.71 5.45 3.58
2 3692.56 1033.62 290.55 122.33 53.02 26.88 14.24 8.69 5.44 3.58
3 3348.41 984.94 282.66 120.08 52.35 26.63 14.14 8.64 5.42 3.56
4 2809.09 897.73 267.69 115.70 51.02 26.13 13.94 8.54 5.37 3.54
5 2109.66 759.04 241.40 107.61 48.49 25.15 13.55 8.35 5.27 3.49
6 1394.72 575.41 200.86 94.09 44.01 23.36 12.81 7.99 5.09 3.39
 7 821.38 383.58 149.37 74.80 37.01 20.39 11.53 7.33 4.74 3.19
8 444.45 227.04 97.84 52.68 27.93 16.20 9.57 6.28 4.17 2.86
9 228.18 123.14 57.20 32.78 18.61 11.42 7.12 4.86 3.34 2.37
10 113.83 63.30 30.80 18.45 11.05 7.13 4.68 3.33 2.38 1.75
11 55.97 31.61 15.78 9.70 6.02 4.02 2.75 2.03 1.51 1.14
12 27.33 15.55 7.86 4.90 3.10 2.12 1.49 1.12 0.86 0.67
13 13.30 7.60 3.87 2.43 1.55 1.07 0.77 0.59 0.46 0.36
14 6.46 3.70 1.89 1.19 0.76 0.53 0.38 0.30 0.23 0.19
Avg. X/L
(Length of 0.45 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.094 0.085
single patch)

1.0E-02 R1
R2
R3
1.0E-03 R4
R5
R6
1.0E-04 R7
R8
EI/pL4

R9
1.0E-05 R10

1.0E-06

1.0E-07

1.0E-08
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.35: Governing Deflection EIpL4 for Single patch load of intensity p as per Deflection Theory
(Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Table 2.18: Governing Bending Moment for Single patch load as per deflection theory

Live Load Bending Moment Parameter 2 105 for Number of Reverse cables
G
2TH1R 2TH2R 2TH3R 2TH4R 2TH5R 2TH6R 2TH7R 2TH8R 2TH9R 2TH10R
- 1654.57 724.73 382.84 246.25 162.46 115.91 84.39 65.92 52.15 42.26
1 1576.29 708.18 378.06 244.24 161.56 115.45 84.14 65.76 52.05 42.20
2 1501.38 691.42 373.12 242.13 160.61 114.96 83.87 65.60 51.95 42.13
3 1368.41 659.32 363.34 237.91 158.70 113.96 83.33 65.27 51.74 41.99
4 1160.07 601.98 344.81 229.67 154.90 111.97 82.25 64.60 51.32 41.71
5 889.25 511.17 312.32 214.44 147.68 108.08 80.11 63.26 50.47 41.14
 6 609.66 391.68 262.17 188.98 134.87 100.90 76.04 60.67 48.81 40.02
7 378.80 267.33 198.31 152.52 114.75 88.99 68.97 56.05 45.74 37.95
8 218.43 164.99 133.89 110.24 88.42 71.95 58.08 48.58 40.59 34.33
9 119.33 97.53 82.02 71.46 60.93 52.21 44.26 38.39 33.13 28.76
10 62.73 54.72 46.85 42.50 37.99 34.03 30.20 27.18 24.32 21.82
11 32.09 29.30 26.28 23.79 21.97 20.33 18.69 17.36 16.04 14.81
12 16.11 15.19 14.12 13.08 12.09 11.42 10.76 10.22 9.66 9.14
13 7.99 7.69 7.34 6.97 6.61 6.26 6.11 5.68 5.46 5.25
14 3.93 3.84 3.72 3.60 3.47 3.35 3.31 3.12 3.00 2.89
Avg. X/L
(Length of 0.45 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.109 0.099
single patch)

1.0E-1
R1
R2
R3
1.0E-2 R4
R5
R6
M/pL2

R7
1.0E-3 R8
R9
R10
1.0E-4

1.0E-5
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
G

Figure 2.36: Governing Bending Moments MpL2 for Single patch load of intensity p as per Deflection
Theory (Models 2TH1R to 2TH10R)

Tables 2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 & 2.18 and Figure 2.24, 2.25, 2.28,
2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35 & 2.36 can be used for preliminary analysis & design of
suspension bridges with multi-reverse cables. The following design steps may be exercised.

1. Depending upon the site conditions, the overall length of suspension bridge can be found.
Based on the length of suspension bridge a suitable depth of the stiffening girder can
decided.
2. To reduce the gravity load path, hangers and reverse cable ties should be sufficiently closed
for achieving an economical design.
3. The stiffening girder must have higher EI value as well as minimum self weight to transfer
the maximum dead and live load to the hanger, even if one or two adjacent hangers are
snapped. For maximum dead and live loads, the required cross-sectional area of the hanger
can be calculated.
4. The main cable sag is determined by the length of suspension bridge and it should be at
least 0.1L. The height of the towers or pylons can be calculated by the sag of main cable.
Main cable tension can be reduced by providing large sag in main cable.
5. The cross-sectional area of main cable is calculated based on the maximum dead load
including its self weight and the maximum live load on the whole span.
6. To estimate the G value, EI of the stiffening girder and the Hw H for the main cable
should be calculated.
7. From the above given charts and tables, design parameters like deflection (upward and
downward) bending moment (sagging and hogging) shear force due to point load, patch
loads and single patch load for different number of reverse cables can be determined. Based
on the results, design or check the EI of the stiffening girder, cross-sectional area of the
main and reverse cables and required number of reverse cables.
8. For the economical design, refer Table 2.16, 2.17 & 2.18 and Figure 2.34, 2.35 & 2.36 for
governing deflections and bending moments for single patch load. Those graphs are plotted
by applying single patch on single bulb of governing influence line diagram of deflections
and bending moments which gives the maximum value. The results for single patch loads
are less as compare to multiple patch loads. The average length of single patch loads is
provided here to help the designer for adjusting the design live load given by IRS code.
9. To maintain the deflection and bending moment within the permissible limit, EI of the
stiffening girder or number of reverse cable, or both can be changed. It is economical to
change the number of reverse cable. From the design charts, it is studied that by increasing
number of reverse cable the deflection and bending moment get reduced significantly for
constant EI or G value.
10. The maximum upward camber should be provided to the reverse cables as per site
conditions. The required profile of reverse cables should be maintained by connecting it
with stiffening girder by ties. Each reverse cable should have adequately pre-tensioned to
sustain the maximum live load in the parabolic cable profile segment.
11. Due to site condition or other reason, if the required number of reverse cables cannot be
provided, then EI of the stiffening girder should be changed and redesign it.
 12. The designed structure should be checked for dynamic loads such as wind-induced
vibration and pedestrian-induced vibration. Mode shapes are provided for 1 to 10 numbers
of reverse cables.
2.9 SUMMARY
The detailed analysis has been performed for the two-hinged single span of suspension bridge
with different number of reverse cables ranging from 1 to 10 as per elastic theory, un-stiffened
theory and as per the deflection theory. The finite difference method has been used to solve the
differential equation from that the live load deflection can be computed. A detailed producer or
the algorithm has been developed to begin with the calculation of live load deflection for
classical suspension bridge and suspension bridge with reverse cables. The other important
design parameters like bending moments and shear forces have been computed by using the live
load deflection . Form that a FORTRAN programming is executed and generated the all
possible of results which is useful for the preliminary design of two-hinged single span
suspension bridge with reverse cables.

The effect of cable extensibility is not considered in present and previous study. In previous
study it was observed that the effect of cable extensibility is considered for the suspension bridge
with one or two reverse cables, as per the rigorous deflection theory. The change in horizontal
tension in main cable and reverse cables due to lo live load was found much lesser then the
classical suspension bridge (without reverse cable) and therefore the design parameters of
suspension bridge with reverse cables were calculated by linearized deflection theory by
assuming the cable to be inextensible.

The validation of hanger forces, deflections of stiffening girder, bending moments of stiffening
girder for different number of reverse cables have been successfully completed it the previous
results. There are some minor difference has been observed in deflections and bending moments
in case of higher number of reverse cables but those can be because of the producer and
precision adopted by the previous work. Although, the previous study was the extensive and
innovative research on the suspension bridge with introduction of reverse cable as structural
member of the bridge.

Design charts and tables are presented here for all design parameters. Some additional design
charts and tables such as bending moments and deflections for single patch loading and shear
force for patch loading is given here whereas it was not calculated in previous work. The most
advantage of using reverse cable in suspension bridges is it reduces the deflection, bending
moment and shear force in stiffening girder significantly and increasing the gravity stiffness of
suspension bridge therefore, it allows the engineer can design the bridge with lighter deck, more
stable and most important more economically.

Getting enough knowledge of design and analysis from the single span of suspension bridge with
reverse cable, the work is extended to the three-span suspension bridges with reverse cables. The
next chapters included the study on three-span suspension bridge with continuous stiffening
girder and intermediate hinged supports are covered.