Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Optimum Design of Stay Cables of Steel Cable-stayed Bridges Using T

Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis and Genetic Algorithm
Manh-Hung Haa, Quoc-Anh Vub, Viet-Hung Truongc,
⁎

a
Department of Structure Mechanics, National University of Civil Engineering, 55 GiaiPhong Road, Hanoi, Viet Nam
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Hanoi Architectural University, NguyenTrai Road, Hanoi, Viet Nam
c
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Thuyloi University, 175 TaySon, Dongda, Hanoi, Viet Nam

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents an effective method to optimize stay cables of steel cable-stayed bridges using nonlinear
Optimization inelastic analysis and a micro-genetic algorithm (μGA). The innovation of the proposed procedure is that both
Advanced analysis initial cable tensions and total weight of the cables are optimized. In order to calculate the optimum initial cable
Genetic algorithm tensions, a new μGA-based method using a unit load matrix is proposed, which allows a significant reduction of
Cable-stayed bridge
computational effort. The cable cross-sections are then optimized subject to dead and live loads using nonlinear
Stay cables
inelastic analysis. To estimate nonlinear inelastic behaviors of the bridge such as cable sag influence, large
displacement, and second-order effect, a practical advanced analysis (PAA) based on catenary elements for
cables and plastic-hinge beam-column elements for pylons, girders, and cross beams is used. The capabilities of
the proposed method are illustrated by studying semi-harp and harp types of a steel cable-stayed bridge.

1. Introduction
Cable-stayed bridges have been widely used in recent years due to
their technical advantages, material savings, and aesthetic appearance.
These advantages of cable-stayed bridges are thanks to the stay cable
system, which transfers loads from the bridge deck to towers and then
helps decrease the deck depth and increase the bridge span. Normally,
stay cables are pre-tensioned to reduce the impact of loads on the
bridge. Some well-known references for analysis and design of cable-
stayed bridges are Gimsing and Georgakis [1], Walther et al. [2],
Svensson H [3], etc. However, the analysis of the initial tensions of stay
cables is usually very complicated due to the cable sag effect of stay
cables, especially in steel cable-stayed bridges where the nonlinear in-
elastic behaviors such as stress-strain relationship of steel material and
the interaction of axial force and bending moment in steel pylons and
girders must be considered (refer Refs. [4–8], among others). Besides
that, the optimization design of stay cables has attracted the re-
searchers' interest in recent years to reduce total cost of stay cable
system while still guarantee the performance of the bridge.
There have been several methods proposed in the literature for
determining initial cable tensions in cable-stayed bridges. Wang et al.
[9] proposed the zero displacement method, in which initial cable
tensions were determined by considering the girder as a continuous
beam with rigid supports at anchors. However, the bending moment
distribution in the girders and pylons resulted from the horizontal
components of the cable forces were not considered in this method.
Chen et al. [10] proposed the force equilibrium method based on
achieving a target bending moment distribution for determining initial
cable tensions. Though, if the target bending moment distribution is not
selected correctly, the singularity problem of the system of equations
can arise. In the optimization method ([11,12]), initial cable tensions
were determined by minimizing a convex scalar function related to the
overall structural geometry. It should be noted in this method that the
constraints must be imposed carefully in order to obtain the correct,
practical result. In addition, the large displacement and (P − Δ) effects
were not considered in this method. Janjic et al. [13] proposed the unit
load method (ULM), which allowed determination of the initial cable
tensions by achieving the desired moment distribution at specific de-
grees of freedom (DOF). The system of linear equations of desired
moments is established by one equation for each DOF, and the initial
cable tensions can then be determined directly by solving this system.
The limitation of this method is that it may get locked in a local
minimum and that singularity problems may arise when solving the
system of linear equations.
Although many works related to the determination of initial cable
tensions have been done, there have been relatively few studies on
optimum design of stay cables. Among these studies, Simões and
Negrão [14] used direct search optimization techniques to minimize

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hunghm@nuce.edu.vn (M.-H. Ha), quocanhvu@gmail.com (Q.-A. Vu), truongviethung@tlu.edu.vn (V.-H. Truong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.10.007
Received 1 June 2018; Received in revised form 1 September 2018; Accepted 22 October 2018
Available online 25 October 2018
2352-0124/ © 2018 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

cable cross-sections, but the techniques used in this method could lead
to the local minima in the obtained results. To overcome this limitation,
Hassan [15] proposed a new method by using genetic algorithm and B-
spline. By using B-spline curves that represent the post-tensioning and
cable cross-section functions along the deck length, this method allows
for the reducing lots of design variables. Obviously, Hassan's method
cannot be applied if there are some cables that have the same anchor
position along the deck, for example in hybrid cable-stayed suspension
bridges. Furthermore, using an equivalent modulus approach for cable
modelling and neglecting the deflection condition check of the bridge Fig. 1. Three-dimensional catenary cable element.
under dead load while optimizing cable cross-sections of this method
could lead to incorrect results. In addition, there are no studies in the
F1 L0 F1
literature that determine the initial cable tensions and minimize cable lx = {ln[ F12 + F22 + (wL0 F3 )2 + wL 0 F3]
Ec Ac w
cross-sections in steel cable-stayed bridges where nonlinear inelastic
behaviors of the structure need to be considered. ln( F12 + F22 + F32 F3)}, (1a)
Metaheuristic algorithms have been attracting a significant interest
of researchers for the optimal design of structures owing to their su- F2 L 0 F2
ly = {ln[ F12 + F22 + (wL 0 F3 ) 2 + wL 0 F3]
periority in finding the optimal solutions of various complex structural Ec Ac w
optimization problems such as: optimization of truss structures [16,17],
ln( F12 + F22 + F32 F3)}, (1b)
optimization of steel frames [18,19], optimization of composite struc-
tures [20,21], etc. The results of recent studies prove that metaheuristic
algorithms effectively find the reasonable optimal solutions that are F3 L0 wL02 1
lz = + + [ F12 + F22 + (wL 0 F3 ) 2 F12 + F22 + F32 ],
acceptable with structural optimization problems where “real” opti- Ec Ac 2Ec Ac w
mums are often not found. Some well-known metaheuristic algorithms (1c)
are simulated annealing (SA) [22], genetic algorithm (GA) [23], ant
where L0 is the cable unstressed length; w is the weight per unit length
colony optimization (ACO) [24], differential evolution (DE) [25], har-
of cable; and, Ac and Ec are the cross-section and elastic modulus of the
mony search (HS) [26], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [27], etc.
cable, respectively.
The further developments and applications of metaheuristic algorithms
We will obtain the following equation by differentiating Eqs. (1a),
can be found in Refs. [28, 29].
(1b), and (1c):
In this work, we will develop a generalized and efficient method to
find the initial tensions and minimize total weight of cables of steel lx lx lx
cable-stayed bridges. In order to capture geometric and material non-
F1 F2 F3
linearities of a structure, a practical advanced analysis (PAA) method is dlx dF1 f11 f12 f13 dF1 dF1
ly ly ly
employed where the cables are modeled as catenary elements, and dl y = dF2 = f21 f22 f23 dF2 = [F ] dF2 ,
pylons, girders, and cross beams are simulated as plastic-hinge beam- F1 F2 F3
dlz dF3 f31 f32 f33 dF3 dF3
column elements. In plastic-hinge beam-column element model, stabi- lz lz lz
lity functions [30] are used to predict second-order effects, and the F1 F2 F3
refined plastic hinge model [31,32] is employed to capture the inelastic (2)
behavior. In the proposed method, a three-stage algorithm is developed,
in which the optimum initial cable tensions under dead load are firstly in which F is defined as the flexibility matrix. The detail of F is pre-
calculated considering only the sag effect (NAS); subsequently, from sented in Appendix.
these results the optimum initial cable tensions in nonlinear analysis are The stiffness matrix is calculated as
determined; finally, the total weight of cables under dead and live loads 1
f11 f12 f13
is optimized. To determine the initial cable tensions in nonlinear ana-
lysis considering only NAS, a new μGA-based method using a unit load K=F 1 = f21 f22 f23 .
matrix is proposed. Semi–harp and harp types of steel cable-stayed f31 f32 f33 (3)
bridge are studied to evaluate the proposed method. In this study, the
fatigue effects of the stay cables are not considered. The influences of The tangent stiffness matrix and internal force vector of the cable
construction stages of cable-stayed bridges are also not investigated. element are then formulated as follows:

KT = K K ,
K K (4)
2. Advanced analysis of steel cable-stayed bridges

Fint = {F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 }T . (5)

In this study, in order to consider the nonlinear inelastic behaviors
of structure, the girders, pylons, and cross-beams of the bridge are si- An iteration procedure is used to calculate the tangent stiffness
mulated as plastic-hinge beam-column elements, and stay cables are matrix and internal force vector of the cable element. The initial values
modeled as catenary elements. of (F1, F2, F3) used for this procedure can be calculated using the fol-
lowing equations proposed by Jayaraman and Knudson [34] that are
based on introduction of small changes in the projected cable lengths:
2.1. Catenary cable element
wlx wl y w cosh 0
F1 = , F2 = , F3 = lz + L0 ,
An elastic catenary cable presented in Fig. 1 is considered. The 2 0 2 0 2 sinh 0 (6)
projected cable lengths are determined as [33].
where

289
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

106 if (l x 2 + l y 2) = 0 {Δd} in Eq. (8) is calculated from {ΔD} by using the following
equation:
0.2 if L 02 lx 2 + l y2 + lz2
= .
0
L 2 lz 2 { d} = [T ]6× 12 { D}, (15)
3 02 1 if L02 2 2
> l x + l y + lz 2
lx + l y2 where [T] is a 6 × 12 transformation matrix given in Appendix.
(7)
The final tangent stiffness matrix of a beam-column element is
calculated as:
2.2. Beam-column element
[K ]12 × 12 = [T ]T6 × 12 [K e ]6 × 6 [T ]6× 12 + [K g ]12 × 12 . (16)
2.2.1. Stability functions accounting for second-order effect
To minimize the solution time, the stability functions [30] are used
for the beam-column element (P − δ effect). By using these functions, a 3. Micro-genetic algorithm
member of the structure can be modeled by using only 1 to 2 elements
to estimate P − δ effect. The incremental force-displacement equation Optimizing cables of cable-stayed bridges using PAA is a nonlinear
of an element is formulated as follows: problem with many variables, leading to several local minima con-
{ F } = [K e ]{ d}, (8) tained in the solution of the optimization program. Therefore, global
optimization methods are preferable. Most global optimization methods
in which
are population-based searches, where the initial bank of designs are
{ F} = [ P MyA MyB MzA MzB T ]T , (9) first developed by random choosing from the spaces of variable designs.
In the iteration process, the design bank is improved by creating better
{ d} = [ yA yB zA zB
T
] , (10) designs and eliminating worse ones. This process is stopped when the
termination condition is satisfied. It is well-known that the number of
where ΔP, ΔMyA, ΔMyB, ΔMzA, ΔMzB, and ΔT are the increases of axial designs of the initial bank significantly influences the optimum results
force, A and B end moments according to y and z axes, and torsion, and time-consuming of the optimization. The small number of designs
respectively; Δδ, ΔθyA, ΔθyB, ΔθzA, ΔθzB, and Δϕ are the increases of can help the optimization quickly converge, but the optimum results
axial displacement, joint rotations, and angle of twist, respectively; Ke is may not be good enough, while the large number of designs makes the
the element tangent stiffness matrix given in Appendix. optimization converge more slowly. To overcome this limitation, μGA is
used in this study. In μGA, a small number of populations is used to
2.2.2. Column research council (CRC) tangent modulus accounting for quickly converge, and restarting the population is then applied to re-
residual stresses start the optimization process again. In this way, μGA can prevent
In CRC tangent modulus concept [32], the elastic modulus E is re- premature convergence, require less memory to store the population,
duced to consider the residual stresses as follows: and efficiently find promising sectors of the search domain. μGA was
Et = E with P Py /2, (11.a) first proposed by Krishnakumar [35] in 1989, and then was improved
by Caroll [36] in 2001. Recently, Truong et al. [37] successfully de-
P P veloped μGA-based method for optimization of nonlinear inelastic semi-
Et = 4 E 1 with P > Py /2, rigid steel frames. The results in that work shows that the performance
Py Py (11.b)
of μGA is better than GA, ACO, HS, and TS methods.
in which Py is the axial yield force. μGA begins by generating sets of design variable values based on the
lower and upper bounds and using binary strings to represent them. In
2.2.3. Parabolic function accounting for flexure the optimization process, a small number of variable individuals is
With small axial force and large bending moments, a gradual stiff- randomly selected from the generated sets in the first generation. In the
ness degradation model is used instead of the tangent modulus model to following generations, the elitism scheme is used to keep the best
represent the partial plasticization effects related to bending. The in- member, while others are replaced by the new individuals, which are
cremental force-displacement equation in this case is written as created using the crossover technique. If the difference of the bits of the
best individual and the others in the population is less than 5%, the
{ F } = [K gd ]{ d}, (12)
optimization process is converged, and the population is restarted by
in which Kgd is the tangent gradual stiffness degradation matrix pre- keeping the best individual and randomly choosing other individuals
sented in Appendix. from the generated sets. The optimization is terminated when the pre-
defined value of total generations reaches.
2.2.4. Shear deformation effect To perform the crossover technique, all individuals in the current
The incremental force-displacement equation is modified as fol- population is converted first to binary strings, and the tournament se-
lowing to consider the transverse shear deformation [32]: lection method is then used to randomly choose individual pairs from
the population for mating. In μGA, the mutation operation is not em-
{ F } = [Ksd ]{ d}, (13)
ployed, and the uniform crossover rate of 0.5 is used.
in which Ksd is the tangent shear deformation stiffness matrix presented
in Appendix.
4. Optimization design method of stay cables

2.2.5. Element stiffness matrix accounting for P − Δ In this study, the stay cables of cable-stayed bridge are designed
P − Δ effect is considered by using the geometric stiffness matrix using a two-stage method proposed by Hassan [15]. The initial cable
[Kg] as tensions are determined first under dead load, and the cable cross-
[Ks] [Ks] sections are then minimized subjected to the combination effect of in-
[K g ]12 × 12 = , itial cable tensions, dead load, and live loads. The proposed optimiza-
[Ks ]T [Ks] (14)
tion procedure is implemented as in Fig. 2 with the first step for de-
with [KS] is the tangent stiffness matrix accounting for P − Δ effect termining the optimum initial cable tensions and the second step for
given in Appendix. optimizing cable cross-sectional areas.

290
M.-H. Ha et al.
Fig. 2. Flow chart of cable optimization of cable-stayed bridge.
4.1. Determination of initial cable tensions
In this section, an effective method based on μGA and ULM method
[13] is proposed for determining optimum initial cable tensions. NAS is
firstly applied to obtain the initial cable tensions {TNAS}, where instead
of using the linear system of equations as in ULM, the optimization is
developed and solved by μGA. This approach helps prevent local
minimum and singularity problems which may arise when solving the
system of linear equations. It should be noted that nonlinear inelastic
behaviors of steel pylons, girders, and cross beams are not considered in
NAS. However, the difference of optimum initial cable tensions
291
Structures 16 (2018) 288–302
obtained in NAS and in nonlinear inelastic analysis is not big since the
pylon horizontal and deck vertical deflections of the bridge are very
small under dead loads. Therefore, the final results {T} of the optimum
initial cable tensions are determined by using μGA considering non-
linear inelastic analysis. The design variables are initial cable tensions,
while their lower- and upper-bounds are estimated based on {TNAS}
with small deviation, i.e. 10% in this study.
4.1.1. Determination of initial cable tensions in nonlinear analysis
considering only sag effect
In the ULM, the moment distribution in the structure (Mj) of point j
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

along the main girder is defined as the sum of the moments created beams are neglected in NAS, an additional optimization procedure
under the action of dead load (MDLj) and the multiple of unit cable summarized in Step 2 of the flow chart shown in Fig. 2 is developed. In
forces (MTij) and an unknown factor (Xi). A system of linear equations is this step, μGA is employed for directly optimizing initial cable tensions
now developed as follows: in nonlinear inelastic analysis under dead loads. The results of initial
m cable tensions obtained from the previous step are used for estimating
j
Mj = MDL + MTji . Xi , lower- and upper- bounds of design variables (initial cable tensions).
i=1 (17) The objective function now can be expressed as follows:
in which m is total cable of the bridge; Mj is total moment in point j; n
MDLj is moment in point j caused by dead load; MTij is moment in point j
nl, DL 2
Min Fnl = ( i ) ,
caused by unit tension Ti in cable i. i=1 (21)
Eq. (17) can be directly solved to find the exact values of Xi. where Δinl, DL
is the deflection of node i in nonlinear inelastic analysis
However, singularity problems may arise when solving the linear caused by the dead loads.
equation system and the cable force distribution as well as girder mo- The constraints of deck vertical and pylon horizontal deflections are
ments in long-span cable-stayed bridges insufficient in the ULM pro- written as
cedure [38]. To overcome this limitation, the new method is proposed
nl, DL
by transforming Eq. (17) to the optimization problem and solved by CiDL =
| i |
1 i = 1, …, n,
using μGA. The objective function of this optimization problem is the [ DL
i ] (22a)
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the deck vertical and
pylon horizontal deflections as follows: |Tj T jli |
j = 1, …, m ,
n T lij (22b)
NAS , DL 2
Min FNAS = ( ) ,
where Tj is the initial tension of cable j and ε is the small deviation
i
i=1 (18)
value.
where n is total nodes of the bridge and ΔiNAS, DL is the deflection of The constrained objective function in Eq. (21) can be transformed to
node i in NAS by dead loads. unconstrained objective function by adding a penalty function as fol-
The constraints of deck vertical and pylon horizontal deflections of lows:
the bridge can be expressed as follows:
n
m nl, DL 2 DL
NAS 1 Fnl, pen = ( i ) + 2 max(Ci ) i = 1, …, n,
ij T j + DL
NAS
j =1
i, DL
DL i=1 (23)
i
CiNAS, DL = DL
= DL
1 i = 1, …, n ,
[ i ] [ i ] = 0 if 2 1 max(CiDL)
where ,in which Fnl, pen and α2 are the pena-
2 = 1 if > 1 max(CiDL )
(19.a) lized objective function and the penalty parameter, respectively.
where δij is the deflection of node i by unit initial tension of cable j;
TjNAS is the initial tension of cable j in NAS; λDL is the load factor of dead 4.2. Optimization of cable cross-sections
load; DL is dead load of the bridge; δi, DL is the deflection of node i by
load λDLDL; and, [ΔiDL] is the maximum allowable deflection of node i In this section, μGA is employed for directly optimizing cable cross-
by dead load. sections in nonlinear inelastic analysis under initial cable tensions, dead
Eq. (19.a) can be rewritten in the matrix form as follows: loads, and live loads. The design variables are cable cross-sections,
while constraints are member stresses and deck vertical and pylon
T1NAS horizontal deflections of the bridge. The initial tensions of cables are
…
[ DL
1 ] 11 … 1m 1, DL [ DL
1 ] the optimum results obtained from Step 2. All the steps for optimizing
… … … … … TmNAS … , cable cross-sectional areas are summarized in Step 3 of the flow chart
[ nDL ] n1 …
DL
nm n, DL n × (m + 1) 1 [ n ] n
n DL shown in Fig. 2.
DL (m + 1) The objective function is the total weight of all stay cables as fol-
(19.b) lows:
or in simple matrix form as m
Min Gca = cable Lj Aj ,
{ [ DL]}
n [ ]n × (m + 1) {T NAS }m + 1 {[ DL]} ,
n (19.c) j=1 (24)

where [δ]n×(m+1)is the unit load matrix of the bridge. where Lj and Aj are the length and cross-sectional area of cable j, re-
The constrained objective function in Eq. (18) can be transformed to spectively, and γcable is the specific weight of cables.
unconstrained objective function by adding a penalty function as fol- The constraints of stresses in pylons, girders, and cross-beams are
lows: expressed as structural load-carrying capacity R is greater than applied
load S as:
n
NAS 2 NAS , DL
FNAS , pen = ( i ) + 1 max(Ci ) i = 1, …, n, R
C str = 1 0.
i=1 (20) S (25)

= 0 if
1 1 max(CiDL) The constrained functions are the limits of node deflections and
where ,in which FNAS, pen and α1are the pena-
= 1 if
1 >1 max(CiDL ) cable stresses of the bridge as follows:
lized objective function and the penalty parameter, respectively. nl, DL
| i |
All the steps for determining initial cable tensions considering NAS CiDL = 1 0 i = 1, …, n,
[ DL
] (26a)
are summarized in Step 1 of the flow chart shown in Fig. 2. i

nl, DL + LL
| i |
4.1.2. Determination of initial cable tensions in nonlinear inelastic analysis CiDL + LL = 1 0 i = 1, …, n ,
[ DL + LL
i ] (26b)
Since nonlinear inelastic behaviors of pylons, girders, and cross-

292
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

nl, DL + LL
j (24), the penalty factor method is used to transform it to an un-
C ten
j = 0.55 0 j = 1, …, m , constrained optimization as follows:
[ u, j ] (26c)

m
lf DL DL + LL ten
Gca, pen = Li Ai + 1C + 2 max(Ci ) + 3 max(Ci ) + 4 max(C j ) i = 1, …, n; j = 1, …, m ,
(27)
cable
i=1

where Δinl, DL+LL and [ΔiDL+LL] are deflection and the maximum al- where.
lowable deflection of node i in nonlinear inelastic analysis by dead and = 0 if C lf 0 = 0 if max(CiDL) 0
, ,
1 2
live loads, respectively, and σjnl, DL+LL and [σu, j] are tensile stress and 106 C lf = 106 if max(CiDL ) > 0
1 = 2 if >0
ultimate tensile strength of cable j in nonlinear inelastic analysis by DL + LL
3 = 0 if max(Ci ) 0 0 = 0 if max(CiDL + LL)
dead and live loads, respectively. Eq. (26c) is based on Clause 10.8.4 of ,
,in
4
6 DL + LL 6 DL + LL
CAN/CSA-S6-06 [39]. 3 = 10 if max(Ci >0 ) 4 = 10 if max(Ci ) >0
To solve the constrained optimization problem presented in Eq. which Gca, pen is the penalized objective function of optimum cross-sec-
tional areas of cables and β1, β2, β3, and β4 are the penalty parameters.

SEMI-HARP TYPE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (20) (19) (18) (17) (16) (15) (14) (13) (12) (11)

HARP TYPE

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (20) (19) (18) (17) (16) (15) (14) (13) (12) (11)

(Girder) 9@6.1 = 54.9 10@6.1 = 61.0 10@6.1 = 61.0 9@6.1 = 54.9

Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
7.32

X
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
SEMI-HARP TYPE HARP TYPE
85 92 85 92 d=0.064
10.0 18.0 4@3.0

84 91
4@6.667

(Left Pylons) 83 90 84 91
82 89
81 88 83 90
Z
82 89
Y
3.332

81 88 Cable in original semi-harp bridge

80 87 80 87
10.0

79 86 79 86
7.50 7.50
99 106 99 106 d=0.066
10.0 18.0 4@3.0

98 105
(Right Pylons)
4@6.667

97 104 98 105
96 103
Z 95 102 97 104
96 103
Y
3.332

95 102 Cable in original harp bridge

94 101 94 101
10.0

93 100 93 100
7.50 7.50
t=0.05
t=0.05
(Sections)
2.0

1.0

1.0 1.0 W21x44

Tower Girder Cross bream

LIVE LOAD CASE 1, LL=3.1KN/m2

LIVE LOAD CASE 2, LL=3.1KN/m2

LIVE LOAD CASE 3, LL=3.1KN/m2

LIVE LOAD CASE 4, LL=3.1KN/m2

Fig. 3. Cable-stayed bridges (unit: m).

293
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

Table 1
Unit load matrix of semi-harp bridge.
Unit: 10−3 mm.
Node T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Dead load

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 −9 46 58 39 7 0 1 2 3 4 −21
3 −16 80 107 74 14 0 2 4 6 7 −38
4 −23 90 141 102 20 0 2 5 8 10 −48
5 −28 81 149 117 23 1 3 6 9 12 −49
6 −30 60 127 116 25 0 3 6 10 13 −43
7 −29 35 87 96 23 0 3 6 9 13 −31
8 −24 12 43 56 18 0 2 5 8 10 −16
9 −14 −2 9 16 9 0 1 3 5 6 −4
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 16 12 8 4 1 11 30 36 37 37 −27
12 31 23 15 8 1 26 102 134 145 151 −90
13 44 33 22 11 2 38 190 272 305 323 −177
14 56 42 28 14 2 49 270 428 497 533 −276
15 66 49 33 16 3 58 337 578 700 762 −376
16 74 55 37 18 3 66 392 703 895 991 −470
17 80 60 40 20 3 72 435 801 1062 1200 −550
18 84 64 42 21 4 76 465 871 1183 1372 −612
19 87 66 43 22 4 78 484 913 1256 1485 −650
20 88 66 44 22 4 79 490 927 1280 1523 −663
79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 −59 −47 −35 −22 −7 7 18 27 35 43 6
81 −161 −131 −99 −63 −21 20 55 83 107 130 12
82 −202 −164 −123 −79 −26 25 69 105 137 166 13
83 −246 −198 −149 −94 −32 30 84 128 168 205 15
84 −290 −234 −174 −109 −37 35 98 151 199 245 17
85 −336 −269 −199 −125 −42 40 112 174 231 285 19

Therefore, this section only demonstrates the efficiency of the proposed

Fig. 4. Initial cable tensions of the semi-harp bridge.
Fig. 5. Vertical displacement of the deck of the semi-harp bridge in nonlinear
inelastic analysis.
5. Case study
Recently, the beam-column and catenary elements have been im-
plemented in the practical advanced analysis program (PAAP) [40,41].
method through two steel cable-stayed bridges as presented in Fig. 3.
The pylons, girders, and cross beams are steel with elastic modulus of
207 GPa, yield stress of 248 MPa, and weight per unit volume of
76.82 KN/m3. The weight per unit volume of cables is equal to 60.5 KN/
m3. The elastic modulus, yield stress, and ultimate tensile strength of
cables are 158.6 GPa, 1103 MPa, and 1600 MPa, respectively. The dead
load including the deck, wearing surface, and traffic barriers is applied
as 10.0 KN/m3, while four live load cases are considered. It should be
noted that the largest deflection in medium and long span cable-stayed
bridges are due to the distributed lane loads. Thus for simplicity, the
live load is assumed to be the distributed load and equal to 9.3 KN/m/
lane [42].
The proposed method is used to solve two common cable design
problems in cable-stayed bridges: (1) determination of initial cable
tensions and (2) minimization of total cable weight. In determination of
initial cable tensions, only the first stage of the proposed method is used
to calculate the optimum initial cable tensions. The cable cross-sections
in this case are given and the bridge is subject to only dead load. The
objective function is SRSS of the deck vertical and pylon horizontal
deflections as Eq. (21), and the constraints are limits of deck and pylon
deflections as Eqs. (22a) and (22b). In this study, the maximum value of
allowable deck vertical and pylon horizontal deflections of the bridge
for dead load is taken as (Hpylon/10, 000), where Hpylon is the height of
the pylon. The number of design variables is equal to 10 due to the
symmetry of the bridge.
In minimization of total cable weight, both initial tensions and
cross-sections of stay cables are optimized by using the full two-stage
proposed method. Firstly, the optimum initial cable tensions are cal-
culated under only dead load, and the cable cross-sections are then
minimized under the optimum initial cable tensions, dead loads, and
live load cases. However, in this case the original cable cross-sections
used to optimize the initial cable tensions in the first stage are un-
known. Based on the experienced analysis of a lot case studies, we
suggest the original cable cross-sections can be calculated by assuming
that they have the same diameter and are the optimum results of the
direct optimization process in which initial tensions and cable cross-

294
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

Table 4
Optimum cross-sectional areas of cables of semi-harp bridge.
Cable number Unit Cross-sectional area

2
1 mm 2431.87
2 mm2 2968.73
3 mm2 1459.23
4 mm2 1780.52
5 mm2 1309.46
6 mm2 1233.09
7 mm2 2704.50
8 mm2 3865.56
9 mm2 3426.98
10 mm2 2859.88
Total weight KN 250.25
Initial weight KN 329.11
Fig. 6. Bending moment of the deck of the semi-harp bridge under the dead
Ratio % 76.04
load with the optimum initial cable tensions obtained using the proposed
method.
sections are design variables. The original cable cross-sections are given
in Fig. 3. The load combination “Strength I” specified in AASHTO-LRFD
[42] is considered for checking the constraint of member stresses as Eq.
(25). The serviceability limit state is used for checking the constraints of
deck vertical and pylon horizontal deflections and cable tensions as Eqs.
(26a), (26b), and (26c) with [ΔiDL+LL] of (span length/800).

5.1. Semi-harp type of cable-stayed bridge

The efficiency of the proposed method for determining the optimum

initial cable tensions of the bridge is presented first. The cable cross-
sections are chosen as given in Fig. 3. The optimum initial cable ten-
sions of the bridge are calculated by two steps: (1) using NAS and (2)
optimizing in nonlinear inelastic analysis. In NAS, the values of popu-
lation and generation are equal to 10 and 10,000, respectively. The unit
load matrix of the bridge [δ]Nx(M+1)is calculated under the assumption
that the initial cable tensions is 1000 N and load factor of dead load is
1 0 00 . The one-fourth of the unit load matrix is presented in Table 1.
After completing optimization in NAS, the optimum initial cable
Fig. 7. Generation history of optimum initial cable tensions of the semi-harp tensions in nonlinear inelastic analysis are determined by using μGA
bridge using direct optimization in nonlinear inelastic analysis. with small possibilities of each variable, which is chosen to be 16 in this
study. The lower- and upper- bounds of each initial cable tension are
assumed to have a deviation of 10% from the obtained results in NAS,
Table 2 and the number of population and generation are 5 and 20, respec-
Comparison of optimization methods of initial cable tensions in semi-harp tively.
bridge. Fig. 4 shows the optimum initial cable tensions obtained from NAS
Unit Method 1a Method 2b Ratioc (%) and the proposed method. It can be seen from this figure that the dif-
ference of the results of two methods is not large. However, the op-
Objective function value mm 12.57 13.48 93.25 timum initial cable tensions obtained from NAS do not satisfy the de-
Number of FE analysis time 100 10,000 1
flection constraint of the bridge when considering nonlinear inelastic
Computation time second 41.73 3434 1.22
analysis as can be seen in Fig. 5. The reason is that NAS considers only
a
The proposed method. the cable sag effect and neglects the nonlinear behaviors of steel pylons,
b
Direct optimization method in nonlinear inelastic analysis. girders, and cross beams. Furthermore, Fig. 6 presents the distribution
c
The ratio of results of the method 1 and the method 2. of bending moment of the deck under the dead load with the optimum
initial cable tensions obtained by using the proposed method.

Table 3
Comparison of optimization methods of cable weight in semi-harp bridge.
Number analysis Min. wt. (kN) Avg. wt. (kN) Std. wt. (kN) Percent feasible (%)

Proposed method
Diameter cable cross-section in original bridge using optimization (=0.064 m) 3000 251.10 255.36 1.82 100.00
Diameter cable cross-section in original bridge = 0.04 (m) Cannot find a feasible optimization result
Diameter of cable cross-section in original bridge = 0.08 (m) 3000 325.48 332.48 2.63 100.00
Diameter cable cross-section in original bridge = 0.10 (m) 3000 511.44 520.54 3.46 100.00
Direct optimization method
Case 1 10,000 273.46 295.14 19.34 66.67
Case 2 20,000 255.37 276.45 15.21 86.67

295
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

(a) Vertical deflection of the deck

(b) Horizontal deflection of the pylons

Fig. 8. Deflection of deck and pylons of the semi-harp bridge.

Table 5
Cable tensile stress in semi-harp bridge.
Unit: MPa.
Cable number Dead load Dead + Live load case

1 2 3 4

1 638.7 696.4 738.2 596.5 678.3

2 624.3 697.6 685.1 637.0 686.8
3 788.9 877.7 814.5 852.8 873.4
4 684.1 769.9 694.2 760.3 768.4
5 768.8 804.5 784.5 788.9 801.9
6 871.6 874.3 867.4 878.4 880.0
7 321.1 365.5 362.8 323.8 369.2
8 445.0 506.7 507.1 444.6 504.4
9 338.4 403.8 403.5 338.9 392.0
10 675.0 729.9 725.8 679.2 707.9
Fig. 9. Load-deflection curves of the best design of the semi-harp bridge under
11 638.7 696.4 738.2 596.5 665.9
12 624.3 697.6 685.1 637.0 640.7
“Strength I” at midspan.
13 788.9 877.7 814.5 852.8 795.6
14 684.1 769.9 694.2 760.3 686.6
stability of the direct optimization, its generation histories with dif-
15 768.8 804.5 784.5 788.9 772.9
16 871.6 874.3 867.4 878.4 864.7
ferent populations are shown in Fig. 7. The comparison of the proposed
17 321.1 365.5 362.8 323.8 316.7 method and the direct optimization is presented in Table 2. As can be
18 445.0 506.7 507.1 444.6 450.2 seen in this table, the objective function value of 12.57 mm of proposed
19 338.4 403.8 403.5 338.9 357.1 method is smaller than 13.48 mm of the direct optimization. Further-
20 675.0 729.9 725.8 679.2 705.5
more, in terms of time-consumption, 41.73 s of proposed method is
much shorter than 3434 s of the direct optimization since the proposed
To illustrate the efficiency of the proposed method, a direct opti- method is mostly performed in mathematical analysis in lieu of struc-
mization using nonlinear inelastic analysis is employed for comparison. tural analysis.
A computer with Intel® Core™ i7-3930K CPU@3.20 Hz 4.20 Hz with 12 In the next step, the efficiency of the proposed method for opti-
processors is used to perform parallel computing. To investigate the mizing cable cross-sections are presented. There are 10 design variables

296
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

Table 6
Unit load matrix of harp bridge.
Unit: 10−3 mm.
Node T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Dead load

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 −8 42 46 25 4 0 1 1 2 4 −21
3 −16 73 85 48 7 0 1 3 5 7 −38
4 −23 82 111 66 10 0 1 4 7 10 −48
5 −27 74 118 76 12 0 2 4 8 12 −49
6 −29 56 101 76 13 0 2 5 8 13 −43
7 −28 32 69 63 12 0 2 4 8 12 −31
8 −23 11 34 37 9 0 1 4 7 10 −16
9 −14 −2 7 11 5 0 1 2 4 6 −4
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 16 11 6 2 0 6 19 28 34 38 −27
12 31 21 12 5 1 13 67 107 133 152 −91
13 44 29 17 7 1 20 124 216 280 325 −178
14 55 37 21 9 1 26 177 340 455 535 −277
15 65 44 25 10 1 31 221 459 641 765 −377
16 73 49 28 11 2 35 257 559 819 995 −471
17 79 53 30 12 2 38 285 637 971 1205 −552
18 83 56 32 13 2 40 305 692 1082 1377 −613
19 86 58 33 13 2 42 317 725 1148 1490 −651
20 87 59 33 13 2 42 320 736 1170 1529 −664
79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 −9 −6 −4 −2 0 0 1 2 3 5 2
81 −17 −12 −7 −4 −1 1 2 5 7 10 3
82 −68 −49 −31 −15 −2 2 12 24 37 51 7
83 −144 −103 −63 −27 −4 3 22 51 83 116 11
84 −237 −165 −95 −39 −5 4 32 80 138 198 15
85 −338 −227 −128 −51 −6 5 43 108 193 288 19

Fig. 10. Initial cable tensions of the harp bridge. Fig. 12. Bending moment of the deck of the harp bridge under the dead load
with the optimum initial cable tensions obtained using the proposed method.

Table 7
Comparison of optimization methods of initial cable tensions in harp bridge.
Unit Method 1a Method 2b Ratioc (%)

Objective function value mm 13.55 17.79 93.25

Number of FE analysis time 100 10,000 1
Computation time second 38.47 3218 1.19

a
The proposed method.
b
Direct optimization method in nonlinear inelastic analysis.
c
The ratio of results of the method 1 and the method 2.

direct optimization is used for comparison, in which initial tensions and

Fig. 11. Vertical displacement of the deck of the harp bridge in nonlinear in-
elastic analysis.
of cable cross-sections in the optimization. In the proposed method,
four cases of the original cable cross-sections are considered corre-
sponding to the cable diameters of 0.04 m, 0.08 m, 0.10 m, and the
optimized value of 0. 064 m as the above suggestion. Furthermore, a
cross-sections of cables are design variables. Therefore, there are 20
design variables in the direct optimization.
The comparison results of the direct optimization and proposed
methods are presented in Table 3, in which each method is evaluated 30
different runs. As can be seen in this table, the proposed method can
find a feasible design in all runs after 3000 analyses. The direct opti-
mization can only find a feasible design in about 66.67% and 86.67%
corresponding to 10,000 and 20,000 analyses, respectively.

297
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

Table 8
Comparison of optimization methods of cable weight in harp bridge.
Number analysis Min. wt. (kN) Avg. wt. (kN) Std. wt. (kN) Percent feasible (%)

Proposed method
Diameter cable cross-section in original bridge using optimization (=0.066 m) 3000 214.41 216.84 1.31 100.00
Diameter cable cross-section in original bridge = 0.04 (m) Cannot find a feasible optimization result
Diameter of cable cross-section in original bridge = 0.08 (m) 3000 320.65 325.68 2.51 100.00
Diameter cable cross-section in original bridge = 0.10 (m) 3000 496.75 504.83 3.13 100.00
Direct optimization method
Case 1 10,000 229.18 245.82 14.29 70.00
Case 2 20,000 215.83 228.64 11.37 90.00

Table 9 than 17.79 mm of direct optimization method. Furthermore, the time-

Optimum cross-sectional areas of cables of harp bridge. consumption of 38.47 s of the proposed method is much shorter than
Cable number Unit Cross-sectional area the 3218 s of direct optimization in nonlinear inelastic analysis.
Table 8 shows the optimization results of four cases of the proposed
1 mm2 3078.50 method and direct optimization method. One again, the proposed
2 mm2 2329.16
method can find a feasible design in all runs after 3000 analyses while
3 mm2 2325.83
4 mm2 2289.04
the direct optimization method only can find a feasible design in about
5 mm2 2233.27 70.00% and 90.00% corresponding to 10,000 and 20,000 analyses,
6 mm2 2262.43 respectively. The average and standard deviation weights of the op-
7 mm2 2399.22 timum cable designs using the proposed method with the optimized
8 mm2 2352.45
cable diameter in the original bridge are the smallest.
9 mm2 2525.83
10 mm2 2625.83 Table 9 shows the optimum cable cross-sections using the proposed
Total weight KN 214.41 method with the optimized cable diameter in the original bridge. It can
Initial weight KN 288.22 be seen from this table that the total weight of the cables of 214.41 KN
Ratio % 74.39 is about 74.39% of the weight before optimization. Furthermore,
compared to the optimum cables of the bridge semi-harp type, the total
weight of the optimum cables of the bridge harp type is equal to
Furthermore, the proposed method using the original cable diameter
85.68%.
obtained by using above suggested method has the smallest average and
Fig. 13 presents the deck vertical and pylon horizontal deflections of
standard deviation weights of the optimum cable designs.
the bridge under the serviceability limit state. It can be seen from this
Table 4 shows the optimum cable cross-sections using the proposed
figure that the maximum deflections of 4.0 mm of the dead load case
method with the optimized cable diameter in the original bridge. It can
are equal to deflection design constraints at nodes 17 and 23. This
be seen from this table that the total weight of the cables of 250.25 KN
observation indicates that the dead load case must be considered in
is equal to 76.04% of the weight before optimizing.
optimizing cable cross-sections. The maximum cable tensile stress of
Fig. 8 presents the deck vertical and pylon horizontal deflections of
880.0 MPa at cable 4 in live load case 4 is also presented in Table 10. In
the bridge under the serviceability limit state. In this figure, the max-
addition, Fig. 14 shows the load-deflection curves of the best design
imum deflections of 4.0 mm of dead load case are equal to deflection
under load combination “Strength I”.
design constraints at nodes 15 and 25. This observation indicates that in
optimizing cable cross-sections, the dead load case must be considered.
6. Conclusion
The maximum cable tensile stress of 880.0 MPa at cable 6 in the live
load case 4 is also presented in Table 5, which is equal to the allowable
The summaries and conclusions of this study are as follows:
tensile stress.

• An
Fig. 9 shows the load-deflection curves of the best design under load
efficient method for optimizing cables in steel cable-stayed
combination “Strength I”. As can be seen in this figure, the load factors
bridges is developed by using practical advanced analysis (PAA) and
of the bridge are greater than 1.0 in all live load cases. This means that
a micro genetic algorithm (μGA). It allows both determination of
the constraint of member stresses is satisfied.
initial cable tensions under dead load and minimization of the total
cable weight under dead and live loads.
•
5.2. Harp type of cable-stayed bridge
The proposed method can prevent local minimum and singularity
problems which may arise when using the unit load method pro-
The second numerical example is the harp type of the bridge.
posed by Janjic et al. [13].
•
Similar to aforementioned case studies, the unit load matrix is calcu-
The computation time about 41 s in all case studies shows that the
lated first in NAS with the assumption that the initial cable tension is
proposed method is efficient and robust in optimization of initial
1000 Nand load factor of dead load is 1 0 00 as shown in Table 6, and
cable tensions.
•
Fig. 10 shows the optimum initial cable tensions of NAS and the pro-
The numerical results show that the proposed method effectively
posed method. Similar to the first case study, it can be seen in Fig. 11
searches for feasible designs of the optimization of cable cross-sec-
that the optimum initial cable tensions obtained from NAS do not sa-
tions.
•
tisfy the deflection constraint of the bridge when considering nonlinear
Although the study of steel cable-stayed bridges is presented in this
inelastic analysis. In addition, Fig. 12 presents the distribution of
work, the proposed procedure gives a meaningful attempt to be
bending moment of the deck under the dead load with the optimum
applied for optimizing cables in other cable-supported bridges such
initial cable tensions obtained by using the proposed method.
as suspension bridges or hybrid cable-stayed suspension bridges.
•
Table 7 shows the comparison of the proposed method and direct
The proposed method can be used as an efficient alternative to the
optimization in nonlinear inelastic analysis. The comparison shows that
available methods for cable design in cable-stayed bridges.
the objective function value of 13.55 mm of proposed method is smaller

298
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

(a) Vertical deflection of the deck

(b) Horizontal deflection of the pylons

Fig. 13. Deflection of deck and pylons of the harp bridge.

Table 10
Cable tensile stress in harp bridge.
Unit: MPa.
Cable number Dead load Dead + Live load case

1 2 3 4

1 537.1 590.8 623.2 504.5 573.1

2 777.6 863.1 844.7 796.3 849.8
3 768.7 861.8 795.3 836.0 857.5
4 794.5 879.2 798.4 875.9 880.0
5 676.7 720.0 676.1 721.0 720.9
6 729.6 771.1 767.3 733.7 772.9
7 726.7 811.0 807.1 730.9 812.7
8 748.7 851.3 849.0 751.4 847.3
9 694.0 787.6 786.9 695.1 773.0
10 663.2 737.3 736.0 664.9 710.0
Fig. 14. Load-deflection curves of the best design of the harp bridge under
11 537.1 590.8 623.2 504.5 563.2
12 777.6 863.1 844.7 796.3 797.2
“Strength I” at midspan.
13 768.7 861.8 795.3 836.0 775.4
14 794.5 879.2 798.4 875.9 794.0
Appendix A
15 676.7 720.0 676.1 721.0 675.5
16 729.6 771.1 767.3 733.7 727.4
17 726.7 811.0 807.1 730.9 726.2
18 748.7 851.3 849.0 751.4 757.6
Ti = F12 + F22 + F32 (A1)
19 694.0 787.6 786.9 695.1 717.3
20 663.2 737.3 736.0 664.9 701.0 Tj = F42 + F52 + F62 (A2)
F4 = F1, F5 = F2, F6 = F3 + wL0 (A3)

299
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

L0 1 Tj + F6 F2 1 1
f11 = + log + 1
Ec Ac w Ti F3 w Ti (Ti F3 ) Tj (Tj + F6 ) (A4)

F1 F2 1 1 F 1 1
f12 = f21 = , f13 = f31 = 1
w Ti (Ti F3 ) Tj (Tj + F6 ) w Tj Ti (A5)

L0 1 Tj + F6 F22 1 1
f22 = + log +
Ec Ac w Ti F3 w Ti (Ti F3 ) Tj (Tj + F6 ) (A6)

F2 1 1 L0 1 F6 F
f23 = f32 = , f33 = + 3
w Tj Ti Ec Ac w Tj Ti (A7)

kn = |P|/ EIn where P is positive for tension (A8)

EA
0 0 0 0 0
L
EIy EIy
0 S1y S2y 0 0 0
L L
EIy EIy
0 S2y S1y 0 0 0
[K e] = L L
EIz EIz
0 0 0 S1z S2z 0
L L
EIz EIz
0 0 0 S2z S1z 0
L L
GJ
0 0 0 0 0
L (A9)
where E and G are the elastic and shear modulus of material, respectively; A and L are the area and length of beam-column element, respectively; J is
the torsional constant; In is the moment of inertia with respect to n axes (n = y, z);

kn L sin(kn L) (kn L) 2cos(kn L)

if P < 0
2 2 cos(kn L) kn L sin(kn L)
S1n =
(kn L)2cosh(kn L) kn L sinh(kn L)
if P > 0
2 2 cosh(kn L) + kn L sinh(kn L) (A10.a)

(kn L)2 kn L sin(kn L)

if P < 0
2 2 cos(kn L) kn L sin(kn L)
S2n =
kn L sin(kn L) (kn L)2
if P > 0
2 2 cosh(kn L) + kn L sinh(kn L) (A10.b)

Et A
0 0 0 0 0
L
0 kiiy kijy 0 0 0
0 kijy kjjy 0 0 0
[K gd] =
0 0 0 kiiz kijz 0
0 0 0 kijz kjjz 0
GJ
0 0 0 0 0
L (A11)
2
(1 B ) S2 Et Iy
kiiy = A S1
S1 L (A12.a)
Et Iy
kijy = A B S2
L (A12.b)
2
(1 A ) S2 Et Iy
kjjy = B S1
S1 L (A12.c)
2
(1 B ) S4 Et Iz
kiiz = A S3
S3 L (A12.d)
Et Iz
kijz = A B S4
L (A12.e)
2
(1 A ) S4 Et Iz
kjjz = B S3
S3 L (A12.f)

300
M.-H. Ha et al. Structures 16 (2018) 288–302

The parameter η is calculate as

= 1.0 for 0.5 (A13.a)

= 4 (1 ) for > 0.5 (A13.b)

where α is calculated as
= p2 + mz2 + m y4 + 3.5p2 mz2 + 3.0p6 m y2 + 4.54z m y2 (A14)
P Mz My
with p = Py
, mz = Mpz
, my = Mpy

Et A
0 0 0 0 0
L
0 Ciiy Cijy 0 0 0
0 Cijy Cjjy 0 0 0
[Ksd] =
0 0 0 Ciiz Cijz 0
0 0 0 Cijz Cjjz 0
GJ
0 0 0 0 0
L (A15)
2
kiiy kjjy kijy + kiiy GLAsz
Ciiy =
kiiy + kjjy + 2kijy + GLAsz (A16.a)
2
kiiy kjjy + kijy + kijy GLAsz
Cijy =
kiiy + kjjy + 2kijy + GLAsz (A16.b)
2
kiiy kjjy kijy + kjjy GLAsz
Cjjy =
kiiy + kjjy + 2kijy + GLAsz (A16.c)
2
kiiz kjjz kijz + kiiz GLAsy
Ciiz =
kiiz + kjjz + 2kijz + GLAsy (A16.d)
2
kiiz kjjz + kijz + kijz GLAsy
Cijz =
kiiz + kjjz + 2kijz + GLAsy (A16.e)
2
kiiz kjjz kijz + kjjz GLAsy
Cjjz =
kiiz + kjjz + 2kijz + GLAsy (A16.f)
0 a b 0 0 0
a c 0 0 0 0
in which Asy and Asz are the shear areas according to y and z axes, respectively.[Ks] = b 0 c 0 0 0 (A17)
0 0 0 0 0 0
MzA + MzB MyA + MyB P 0 0 0 0 0 0
a= ,b= ,c=
L2 L2 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A18-20)

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
L L
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
[T ]6 × 12 = L L
1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
L L
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
L L
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 (A21)

References
[1] Gimsing NJ, Georgakis CT. Cable supported bridges: concept and design. 3 ed.
Wiley; 2011.
[2] Walther R, Houriet B, Isler W, Moia P, Klein JF. Cable stayed bridges. 2 ed. Thomas
Telford; 1999.
[3] Svensson H. Cable-stayed bridges: 40 years of experience worldwide. Ernst & Sohn;
2012.
[4] Freire AMS, Negrao JHO, Lopes AV. Geometrical nonlinearities on the static ana-
lysis of highly flexible steel cable-stayed bridges. J Comput Struct
2006;84(31−32):2128–40.
[5] Yoo H, Choi DH. Improved system buckling analysis of effective lengths of girder
and tower members in steel cable-stayed bridges. J Comput Struct
2009;87(13–14):847–60.
[6] Yoo H, Na HS, Choi DH. Approximate method for estimation of collapse loads of
steel cable-stayed bridges. J Constr Steel Res 2012;72:143–54.
[7] Kim SJ, Won DH, Kang YJ. Ultimate behavior of steel cable-stayed bridges — II.
Parametric study. Int J Steel Struct 2016;16(2):625–36.
[8] Wu J, Frangopol DM, Soliman M. Geometry control simulation for long-span steel
cable-stayed bridges based on geometrically nonlinear analysis. Eng Struct
2015;90:71–82.
[9] Wang PH, Tseng TC, Yang CG. Initial shape of cable-stayed bridges. J Comput Struct
1993;46:1095–106.
[10] Chen DW, Au FTK, Tham LG, Lee PKK. Determination of initial cable forces in
prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridges for given design deck profiles using the
force equilibrium method. J Comput Struct 2000;74:1–9.
[11] Hassan MM, Nassef AO, El Damatty AA. Determination of optimum post tensioning
cable forces of cable-stayed bridges. J Eng Struct 2012;44:248–59.
[12] Negrão JHO, Simões LMC. Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with three

301
M.-H. Ha et al.
dimensional modelling. J Comput Struct 1997;64:741–58.
[13] Janjic D, Pircher M, Pircher H. Optimization of cable tensioning in cable-stayed
bridges. J Bridge Eng ASCE 2003;8:131–7.
[14] Simões LMC, Negrão JHJO. Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with box-girder
decks. J Adv Eng Softw 2000;31:417–23.
[15] Hassan MM. Optimization of stay cables in cable-stayed bridges using finite ele-
ment, genetic algorithm, and B-spline combined technique. J Eng Struct
2013;49:643–54.
[16] Kaveh A, Mirzaei B, Jafarvand. An improved magnetic charged system search for
optimization of truss structures with continuous and discrete variables. Appl Soft
Comput 2015;28:400–10.
[17] Truong VH, Kim SE. Reliability-based design optimization of nonlinear inelastic
trusses using improved differential evolution algorithm. Adv Eng Softw
2018;121:59–74.
[18] Truong VH, Kim SE. A robust method for optimization of semi-rigid steel frames
subject to seismic loading. J Constr Steel Res 2018;145C:184–95.
[19] Kaveh A, Ghafari MH, Gholipour. Optimum seismic design of steel frames con-
sidering the connection types. J Constr Steel Res 2017;130:79–87.
[20] Coelho PG, Guedes JM, Rodrigues HC. Multiscale topology optimization of bi-ma-
terial laminated composite structures. Compos Struct 2015;132:495–505.
[21] Lund E. Discrete material and thickness optimization of laminated composite
structures including failure criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2018;57(6):2357–75.
[22] Bennage WA, Dhingra AK. Single and multiobjective structural optimization in
discrete-continuous variables using simulated annealing. Int J Numer Methods Eng
1995;38(16):2753–73.
[23] Tang W, Tong L, Gu Y. Improved genetic algorithm for design optimization of truss
structures with sizing, shape and topology variables. Int J Numer Methods Eng
2005;62(13):1737–62.
[24] Kaveh A, Shojaee S. Optimal design of skeletal structures using ant colony opti-
mization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2007;70(5):563–81.
[25] Storn R, Price K. Differential evolution — a simple and efficient heuristic for global
optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 1997;11:341–59.
[26] Truong VH, Kim SE. An efficient method for reliability-based design optimization of
302
Structures 16 (2018) 288–302
nonlinear inelastic steel space frames. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2017;56(2):331–51.
[27] Perez RE, Behdinan K. Particle swarm approach for structural design optimization.
Comput Struct 2007;85:1579–88.
[28] Kaveh A. Advances in metaheuristics algorithms for optimal design of structures.
Springer; 2014.
[29] Kaveh A. Applications of metaheuristic optimization algorithms in civil en-
gineering. Springer; 2017.
[30] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1992.
[31] Chen WF, Kim SE. LRFD steel design using advanced analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press; 1997.
[32] Kim SE, Kim MK, Chen WF. Improved refined plastic hinge analysis accounting for
strain reversal. J Eng Struct 2000;22:15–25.
[33] Truong VH, Kim SE. An efficient method of system reliability analysis of steel cable-
stayed bridges. J Adv Eng Softw 2017;114:295–311.
[34] Jayaraman H, Knudson W. A curved element for the analysis of cable structures. J
Comput Struct 1981;14(3–4):325–33.
[35] Krishnakumar K. Micro-genetic algorithms for stationary and non-stationary func-
tion optimization. SPIE: Intelligent Control and Adaptive Systems
1989;1196:289–96.
[36] Carroll DL. FORTRAN genetic algorithm (GA) driver v1.7.1 [Online] Available from
http://www.cuaerospace.com/carroll/ga.html; 2001.
[37] Truong VH, Nguyen PC, Kim SE. An efficient method for optimizing space steel
frames with semi-rigid joints using practical advanced analysis and the micro-ge-
netic algorithm. J Constr Steel Res 2017;128:416–27.
[38] Lee TY, Kim YH, Kang SW. Optimization of tensioning strategy for asymmetric
cable-stayed bridge and its effect on construction process. Struct Multidiscip Optim
2008;35(6):623–9.
[39] Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, (2006), (CAN/CSA-S6-06).
[40] Thai HT, Kim SE. Practical advanced analysis software for nonlinear inelastic
analysis of space steel structures. J Adv Eng Softw 2009;40(9):786–97.
[41] Thai HT, Kim SE. Second-order inelastic of cable-stayed bridges. J Finite Elements
in Analysis and Design 2012;53:48–55.
[42] AASHTO LRFD. Bridge design specifications. 4th Ed. 2007.