21st International Conference on Science,

Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2020

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OFSUSPENSION BRIDGE
by
S.NO. NAME REGISTER NO.
(1) NIHAL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 20MST0011
(2) SATYAM SHIVAM 20MST0017
(3) ABHISHEK S 20MST0061
SET PROJECT (Id:-210773)
M.TECH- STRUCTURALENGINEERING
FINAL REVIEW
DATE:-30-11-2020

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF

DR. RAMA MOHAN RAO P
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR(Sr.G)

SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

VELLORE INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY
NOVEMBER 2020
 INTRODUCTION
 A suspension bridge makes use of cables, chains or ropes in suspending the
roadway which is supported by two tall towers. Such towers bear the brunt
of the weight as compressive force presses down on the surface of the
suspension bridge and then move up the cables, chains or ropes to pass the
compressive force back to thetowers.

 The cables used for support bear the tension forces acting on the bridge.
These supporting cables are stretched across the two supporting
anchorage systems.

 Suspension bridges are known to span great distances with their range being
generally 600 to 2000 plus meters and their design structure enables them to
span through lengths which are beyond the possibility of any other type of
bridge.

 Considering the complex engineering involved and the materials required,

these bridges are surprisingly a costly construction but when it comes to the
area covered by them, this is an economically feasible option.
 OBJECTIVES
 To plan the bridge with the help of AutoCAD.
 To analyze the bridge using SAP2000.
 To design the structural components of the bridge to bear
the load safely.
 NECESSITY
 Chitroptala river doesn’t have a bridge that connects it
to National Highway and transportation lanes.
 This bridge is constructed for the passage over the
river Chitroptala.
 It would reduce the time of travel from Section Bazaar
to Uttarkul.
 It will save about 16 kilometers of additional journey on a
over route.
 SCOPE
 The study will be focussed on modelling of the
suspension bridge using software and analysing its
behaviour when subjected to loads.
 Construction of this bridge will pull in business in the
region and the region will benefit greatly due to the
enhanced connectivity and new opportunities for
economic progress.
 The various loads acting on the bridge will be
calculated based on the Indian Standard Codebooks
SOFTWARE /EQUIPMENT USED
1. AutoCAD 2019
2. SAP2000 v14
3. Microsoft Office Suite 2020
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY
 The basic design of our bridge was made using “The theory of
suspension bridges” and “Study on Suspension Bridge: Analysis and
Construction criteria” gaining understanding about the concepts,
functioning and use of a suspension bridge under specific conditions and
its benefits.

 The towers and other load bearing components were designed using
“Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge”, “Independent Research”,
“Simplified Analysis for Preliminary Design of Towers in Suspension
Bridges” and “Tower design for Cable Bridges”

 The foundation was chosen after consulting the paper “The Caissons of
the Tower Foundation – Izmit Bay Suspension Bridge project” and
since the water body was not very deep and the sea floor soil is not strong
enough to handle the weight of the structure deep penetration well
foundation was chosen to secure the structure to the sea bed.
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY
 After the main structure was designed based on the soil and dimensions of the river
we moved on to the design of the rigid pavement which was guided by Indian
Design Code for Rigid Pavement Slab Design which helped us have the basic
idea of a rigid pavement and how to design it while the vibration under vehicles
was studied from “Vibration of Suspension Bridge Under Vehicular Movement”.

 Once the analysis for the dead weight of the reinforced concrete structure was done,
the pavement weight and vehicular expected load the cables were designed using
“Geometrical Nonlinearities on the static analysis of highly flexible steel cable-
stayed bridges”, the corrosion and protection handled using “Corrosion
Mechanism and Protection Methods for Suspension Bridges Cables” and
“Corrosion and Embrittlement in High Strength Wires of Suspension Bridge
Cables”.

 A safety analysis of the cables was done to avoid failure under extreme
circumstances and followed “Safety Analysis of Suspension-Bridge Cables”.
Throughout the project, the Indian Standard Codes were used as a continuous
guide.
 GAP IN RESEARCH

From these research papers and publications, the required inspirationfor

the project was taken and implemented in the best possible way. There
are some research gaps on which further work can be done in future
which includes:
 Study on the design of the cables – Includes the usage of anchor
blocks which are used for support in the main cable.
 Study on Wind load – Includes the consideration of application of
wind load simulation to the bridge and analyse it under wind load.
 Study on Seismic load – Includes the application of seismic load upon
the bridge structure and the foundation of the bridge.
METHODOLGY
Selection of Site

Literature Review

Preparation of Plan

Structural Analysis and Design

Results and Discussions

Conclusion

Report Preparation

Methodology
 PLAN

Plan of suspensionbridge

Total Span 336 Metres

Center Span 168 Meters (84 Divisions)
Side Span 84 Meters (28 Divisions)
Tower Height AboveDeck 22 Metres
Tower Height BelowDeck 5 Metres
Deck Width 10.6 Metres
Center Sag 5 Metres
3D VIEW

3d view in sap2000
 BRIDGE LOADING

Dead Load Loading Type 1 Lane IRC Class 70RLoading

1. Self-Weight of the Truss 2 Lanes Class ALoading

2. Weight of Slab over the deck
Dead Load Value 12.52 kN/m2
Live Load Live Load Value 21.106 kN/m2

1. Road Live load Loading Cases General Loading

Positive Moment Loading

Loading used as per IRC 6, Clause 207.4
a. One lane of class 70R Negative Moment Loading
b. Two lanes of classA
External Loads Wind, Earthquake
Wind Speed 50 m/s
Earthquake Zone Zone 3
Foundation Type Well Foundation
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Bending Moment under loading condition

Axial Deformation under loading condition

 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Stress in bridge

The colour code given below shows the intensity of the stress on the bridge components
with grey being the lowest stress region and red being the highest stress region.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Cross-Section of Bridge

Typical Dead load Bending Diagram

 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
GIRDER DESIGN

The girder is designed to add stiffness to the deck and keep the overall shape of
the deck intact. A tube section is chosen asgirder.

Value Load (kN) Axial Force (kN) Location/Value

1. -19211.12 329.813 End / Max
2. -43077.88 44.877 Mid / Min
Maximum axial force

Value Load (kN) Moment (kN-m) Location/Value

1. -43077.88 164056.53 Mid / Max
2. -16466.67 -62382.235 End / Min
Maximum bending moment
 STRUCTURALANALYSIS
STRINGER DESIGN
The stringer is designed to add stiffness to the deck and keep the overall layout of the deck
intact. I-section is chosen as stringer. I-Section is chosen because of its high Section
Modulus and this is an ideal shape when it comes to bearing extremely heavy loads. A
depth of 1.8 m allows a good section height for load bearing.
 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
TOP TOWERDESIGN

The dimensions have been kept symmetrical owing to a higher strength and a better
architectural look. With a flange thickness of 0.25 m, it’s adequately thick.
 STRUCTURALANALYSIS
Top-Tower Axial Force
Value Load (kN) Axial Force (kN) Location/Value
1. -140176.2 -1383.63 Centre / Max
2. -48067.82 -530.631 Centre / Min
Top-Tower Forces
DesignSection DesignType Location Pu VuMajor Tu

Text Text m kN kN kN-m

TOWER TOP Column 0 -62598.73 -619.07 -8.8448
TOWER TOP Column 11 -59338.93 -619.07 -8.8448
TOWER TOP Column 22 -56079.13 -619.07 -8.8448
TOWER TOP Column 0 -53656.05 -530.631 -7.5812
TOWER TOP Column 11 -50861.94 -530.631 -7.5812
TOWER TOP Column 22 -48067.82 -530.631 -7.5812
TOWER TOP Column 0 -62598.73 -619.07 -8.8448
TOWER TOP Column 11 -59338.93 -619.07 -8.8448
TOWER TOP Column 22 -56079.13 -619.07 -8.8448
TOWER TOP Column 0 -140176.2 -1383.63 -19.795
TOWER TOP Column 11 -132911.5 -1383.63 -19.795
TOWER TOP Column 22 -125646.8 -1383.63 -19.795
 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
BOTTOM TOWER DESIGN

The dimensions have been kept symmetrical owing to a higher strength and a better
architectural look. With a flange thickness of 1m, it’s adequately thick.
 STRUCTURALANALYSIS
Bottom-Tower Axial Force
Value Load (kN) Axial Force (kN) Location/Value

1. -427125.2 122309.211 Centre / Max

2. -966192.9 274278.6 Centre / Min

Bottom-Tower Forces
Design Location Pu MuMajor VuMajor Tu

Section
Text m kN kN-m kN kN-m
BOTTOM 0 -431435.6 -2121217.2 122309.2 3564.2
BOTTOM 2.5 -427125.1 -2426990.2 122309.2 3564.2
BOTTOM 5 -422814.7 -2732763.3 122309.2 3564.2
BOTTOM 0 -369802.0 -1818186.2 104836.4 3055.1
BOTTOM 2.5 -366107.3 -2080277.3 104836.4 3055.1
BOTTOM 5 -362412.6 -2342368.5 104836.4 3055.1
BOTTOM 0 -431435.6 -2121217.2 122309.2 3564.2
BOTTOM 2.5 -427125.1 -2426990.2 122309.2 3564.2
BOTTOM 5 -422814.7 -2732763.3 122309.2 3564.2
BOTTOM 0 -966192.9 -4756544.7 274278.6 7991.8
BOTTOM 2.5 -956586.7 -5442241.2 274278.6 7991.8
 STRUCTURALANALYSIS
BEAM DESIGN
The beam is designed to add stiffness to the deck and keep the overall layout of
the deck intact. I-section is chosen as beam. I-Section is chosen because of its high
Section Modulus and this is an ideal shape when it comes to bearing extremely heavy
loads. A depth of 2 m allows a good section height for loadbearing.
 STEEL CABLE DESIGN
Main Cables
Total diameter : 1 m

Total area = πd = π×1 = 0.785 m2

2 2
4 4
Seven-strand Wire. The Main Cable is under
maximum load at the mid-span of the bridge.

Design Location Pu MuMajor VuMajor Tu

Section
Text m KN KN-m KN KN-m
MAIN CABLE 0 73384.455 -1313.711 -303.238 14.0739
MAIN CABLE 1.65005 73326.291 -918.0523 -176.335 14.0739
MAIN CABLE 3.30009 73268.126 -731.7899 -49.431 14.073
MAIN CABLE 0 62900.961 -1126.038 -259.918 12.063
MAIN CABLE 1.65005 62851.106 -786.902 -151.144 12.063
MAIN CABLE 3.30009 62801.251 -627.2485 -42.37 12.063
MAIN CABLE 0 73384.455 -1313.711 -303.238 14.073
MAIN CABLE 1.65005 73326.291 -918.0523 -176.335 14.073
MAIN CABLE 3.30009 73268.126 -731.7899 -49.431 14.073
MAIN CABLE 0 164428.18 -2942.339 -677.874 31.512
MAIN CABLE 1.65005 164298.55 -2057.142 -395.061 31.512
MAIN CABLE 3.30009 164168.93 -1638.600 -112.248 31.512
 STEEL CABLE DESIGN
Suspender Cables
Total diameter: 0.4 m
Total area = πd = π×0.4 = 0.04 m2
2 2
4 4
Five-strand wire used. The Suspenders are under
maximum load near the towers.

Design Section Location Pu Mu Major Vu Major Tu

Text m KN KN-m KN KN-m
SUSPENDER 0 381.908 -47.4913 -4.33 -0.225
SUSPENDER 9.48469 510.344 -6.4219 -4.33 -0.225
SUSPENDER 18.9693 638.781 34.6476 -4.33 -0.225
SUSPENDER 0 327.35 -40.7069 -3.711 -0.193
SUSPENDER 9.48469 437.438 -5.5045 -3.711 -0.193
SUSPENDER 18.96939 547.526 29.6979 -3.711 -0.193
SUSPENDER 0 381.908 -47.4913 -4.33 -0.225
SUSPENDER 9.48469 510.344 -6.4219 -4.33 -0.225
SUSPENDER 18.96939 638.781 34.6476 -4.33 -0.225
SUSPENDER 0 861.676 -106.259 -9.686 -0.505
SUSPENDER 9.48469 1147.90 -14.3918 -9.686 -0.505
 DESIGN OF DECK SLAB
Clear Span = 5 m
Wearing Coat =100 mm
Concrete Grade = M40
1. Effective span of the bridge
Clear span by overall depth is assumed to be 12.
5
Estimated overall depth of the slab = = 0.416 m
12

Overall depth of the slab assumed = 0.43 m

Clear span + Overall depth = 5000 + 430 = 5430 mm = 5.43 m, L: 5.43 m
2. Dead Load
Self-weight of the slab: 0.43 × 24 = 10.32 kN/m2
Self-weight of wearing coat: 0.1 × 22 = 2.2 kN/m2
Total dead load: qdl = 10.32 + 2.2 = 12.52kN/m2
= qdl× L2 = 12.52× 5.432
Bending Moment: M dl = 46.14 kN-m/m
8 8
qdl× L = 12.52× 5.43 = 33.99 kN/m
Shear Force: V dl =
2 2
Width of deck slab: 8 + (2 × 1) + (2 × 0.3) = 10.6 m, B = 10.6 m
 DESIGN OF DECK SLAB
B = 10.6 =1.952
L 5.43
Using IRC 21:2000, Table 21, α =3

x = 5.43 =2.715
2
b = 0.84 + (2 × 0.1) = 1.04m

bef = 3 × 2.715 (1 – 2.715 ) + 1.04 = 5.113 m

5.43
Effective length of dispersion: Lef = 4.57 + (2 × 0.43) + (2 × 0.1) = 5.63m

But we will consider 5.43 m as this is the maximum width available for design.

Effective width for both tracks: 2.92 + (2.9 – 0.84) + 5.113 = 7.536 m
2
So, we have 7.536 m × 5.63 m in longitudinal direction.
3. Impact Factor
We will consider the impact factor be 10 % as the span here is less than 9 m.

10 + 15 × (9 - 5.43) = 23.3875 %
9 −5
 DESIGN OF DECK SLAB
Intensity of loading = 1.228 × 700 = 21.106 kN/m2
5.43 × 7.536
21.106 × 5.432 5.432 5.432
BM LL = ( ×5.432) – (21.106 × 2 × 4 ) = 77.782 kNm
2
Total Bending Moment = 46.14 + 77.782 = 123.922kNm

VLL = (21.106 × 5.43) × ( (5.43 − 2.71) ) = 57.305kN

5.43
Total Shear Force= 33.99 + 57.305 = 91.295 kN
4. Design Constraints
m ×σcbc
N= = 0.399 For M 40 and Fe415, from IRC 21, Table 9
m × (σcbc + σst)

j = 1 - N = 1 – 0.3993 =0.867
3
Q = 0.5 × N × j × σcbc =2.3056
Mu = 123.922kNm
Vu = 91.295 kN
Effective Depth = √ ( Maximum Bending Moment ) = 231.836 mm
b×Q
deff provided = 430 – 50 = 380mm,
50 mm is the bottom cover
Maximum Bending Moment = 1880.683mm2
Area of longitudinal reinforcement =A st =
σst × deff provided × j
 DESIGN OF DECK SLAB
Assumed 20 mm Ø bars
A st
× 1000 = 166.96 mm ≈ 160mm c/c
A st
Alternate bars need to bend at the supports.
Distribution steel should be designed for bending moment = 0.3 × BMLL + 0.2 BMDL = 32.56 kNm
Assumed 10 mm Ø bars width-wise.
Ø longitudinal bar Ø distribution bar
deff available width-wise = deff provided – - = 365 mm
2 2
32.56 × 1000000
Area of distribution steel = 200 × 365 × 0.867 = 514.449mm2
A st
× 1000 = 152.59 mm ≈ 150mm c/c
A st
5. Check for Shear Stress
As per IRC 21:2000, class 304.7.1.1
Shear Force = 0.221 N/mm2
τv=
b × deff
τc =Kτco
100 × Ast provided
τco = = 0.247N/mm2
b × deff provided
τco = 0.227 Using IRC 21:2000, Table12B
τc = 1 × 0.227 =0.227
0.227 > τv
 DESIGN OF DECK SLAB

Slab reinforcement details for the concrete Sectional details of the slab and the
deck slab. The 10 mm bars are used as reinforcements shown in yellow are the
stress distribution bars while the laterally stress distribution reinforcements, also
provided bars are of 20 mm and these are known as secondary reinforcements while
the main reinforcements for the slab. the ones shown in red are the primary or
main reinforcements.
Analysis Summary for Critical
Sections
Critical Bending Axial Tension Axial Shear Force
Frame Moment (kN-m) (kN) Compression (kN) (kN)
Number

Tower-Top 982 None None 132911.519 None

Tower-Btm 978 2732763.31 122309.211 9469980.542 25793.455

Main Cable 803 -1638.6 164168.935 None 259.918

Suspender 790 None 1434.135 None None

Stringer 713 72436.36 None 44818.84 1967.67

Beam 383 -5981.77 None 1683.421 1315.049

 CONCLUSION
 The analysis has been performed based on Indian Standard Codes.
 The main cable experiences a maximum tension of 33184.203 kN at the
support of the tower. The maximum average stress is 368.7 N/mm2. The
stress is within permissible limits and the structure is safe. The cables are
subjected to pure tensile stresses.

 The bridge towers are subjected to pure compressive forces above the deck.
The maximum compressive force experienced is 27220.898 kN.

 After analysis and design bridge is safe.

 REFERENCES
(1). Bathrust and Richard (2014), The Bridge and Structural Engineer, Royal Military College of Canada, Canada. (2).
Sohel Ahmed Quadri (2002), Study on Historical Steel Bridge in Ahmad Nagar, JNEC Aurangabad,Maharashtra.
(3) Ramankutty Kannankutty and Donald J. Flemming (2007), Bridge Engineering, Committee on General Structures, City of Minneapolis
Department of Public Works, Minneapolis.
(4)A.M.S. Freire, J.H.O. Negrao and A. V. Lopes (2006), Geometrical Nonlinearities on the static Analysis of highly flexible steel cable-stayed
Bridges, Journal on Computers and Structures, International Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 84, page 2128-2140.
(5)John Matteo, George Deodatis and David P. Billington (2004), Safety Analysis of Suspension-Bridge Cables, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.120, page 20-21.
(6) Tanvir Manzur and Jewel Sarker (2013), Optimum Dimensions of Suspension Bridges Considering Natural Period, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Vol.15, page 67-96.
(7) Ahmed Adham Abdullah (2012), Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Iraq.
(8) Gohel Pinkal, Patel Sweta and Pandey Vipul (2017), Study on Suspension Bridge: Analysis and Construction Criteria, International Journal of
Science and Engineering Development Research, Vol.2, page 382-401.
(9)Firoz Abbasi and Sumeet Pahwa (2015), A Review and Analysis of Suspension Bridge Structures, International Journal of Science and
Research, Vol.21, page 231-265.
(10) C.Neeladharan and J.Rasigha (2017), Analysis and Design of Suspension Cable Bridge, International Journal of Innovative Research in
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol.6, page 1142-1210.
(11) John A. Ochsendorf (1999), Self-Anchored Suspension Bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol.17, page 1943-1972.
(12)Majid Barghian and Gholamreza Zamani Ahari (2004), Theory of suspension Bridges, International Association of Universities, Vol.65, page
211-267.
(13)P.K Chatterjee, T.K Datta and C.S Surana (1994), Vibration of Suspension Bridge under Vehicular Movement, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol.54, page 733-814.
(14) Murat Gunaydin, Suleyman Adanur, Ahmet Can Altunisik and Baris Sevim (2014), Determination of structural behavior of Bosporus
suspension bridge considering construction stages and different soil conditions, Steel and Composite
Structures, Vol.22, page 405-429.
(15) Jørgen S. Steenfelt , Brian Foged and Anders H. Augustesen (2015), Izmit Bay Bridge, International Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol.3
Issue 2, page 53-68.
 REFERENCES
(16) Pieterjan Pertz, Toon De Vis, Arno Janssens and Jannes Meeusen (2017), Tower Design for Cable Bridges, College of Civil Engineering,
Ghent University, Belgium.
(17)Dong-Ho Choi, Sun-Gil Gwon and Ho-Sung Na (2014), Simplified Analysis for Preliminary Design of Towers in Suspension Bridge,
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol.19, page 487-568.
(18) R. Betti, A.C West, G. Vermaas, Y.Cao (2005), Corrosion and Embrittlement in High Strength Wires of Suspension Bridge Cables, Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol.10, page 741-759.
(19) IS 800:2007, Code of practice for general construction in steel (Third revision), Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi – 110002.
(20) IS 811:1987, Specification for cold formed light gauge structural steel sections (Second revision), Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi –
110002.
(21)IS 875(Part 1):1987, Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures Part 1 Dead loads - Unit weights
of building material and stored materials (second revision) (Incorporating IS:1911-1967), Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi – 110002.
(22) IS 456-2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi – 110002.
(23) IRC6-2016, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi –110002.
 .

THANKYOU