【国外研修報告】

Static Characteristics and Aerodynamic Stability of

Proposed Hybrid Stress-ribbon Bridges
Takeshi Yoshimura1 and Niels J. Gimsing2
提案するハイブリッド吊床版橋の静力学特性と耐風安定性
吉村 健 1，N.J. ギムスィング 2

Summary: Two kinds of hybrid stress-ribbon bridges for pedestrian use, the ‘stress-ribbon
suspension’ and the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridges, were preliminary-designed. The
girder of these bridges is composed of edge beams of steel or pre-stressed concrete; and an open grating
deck plate, cross beams and lateral bracings of steel. Numerical analyses and wind tunnel 2D model
studies were conducted to examine the static characteristics and the aerodynamic stability of these
structures. It was found that the horizontal component of tensile force in the cables can be reduced up
to one-fourteenth of a conventional concrete stress-ribbon bridge, that the maximum deflection of the
girder is controlled nearly below the allowable value, that the stresses in the cables and the edge beams
are below the allowable value and that the critical flutter speed is expected to be high enough. The
application of the proposals for hybrid structures to vehicle bridges was also discussed and there is
feasibility that the proposal could be applicable to vehicle bridges.

Keywords: hybrid bridge in structure and material; stress-ribbon bridge; suspension bridge;
cable-stayed bridge; static characteristics; aerodynamic stability; critical flutter speed.

1. Introduction Then, the ‘stress-ribbon suspension bridge’ shown

The authors have investigated the aerodynamic
properties of two kinds of hybrid stress-ribbon
pedestrian bridge with a very light steel girder or a light
steel-concrete girder. The preliminary design,
including the static and aerodynamic characteristics,
and the prospects of applying hybrid structures to
vehicle bridges are described in this paper. In this
section, the outline of the developing process is
reported.
Firstly, it was shown how a small change of the
girder edge shape for a conventional concrete
stress-ribbon bridge could increase the aerodynamic
stability: the heavy triangular fairing of concrete for the
Jinya (Jinya-no-mori) Bridge was replaced with a much
lighter half-circular fairing of steel [1]. Secondly, a
much lighter full-steel stress-ribbon, which has a
similar configuration, shown in Fig. 1(b), was proposed
for a decrease of the extremely large tensile force in the
cables, Hw [2]. This structure is composed of inner
cables, a pair of circular pipes forming edge beams, an
open grating deck plate, cross beams and lateral
bracings. Its preliminary design suggested that the
deck weight, w, could be reduced to one-eighth of the
Jinya Bridge.
in Fig. 1 was proposed to increase the sag of 70 % of
the cables, which leads to a further reduction in Hw
[3,4]. Finally, the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed
suspension bridge’ shown in Fig. 2 was proposed [5].
2. Proposal for hybrid stress-ribbon bridges
2.1 Outline of two kinds of hybrid structure
In the ‘stress-ribbon suspension’ bridge, the upper
cables that are positioned above the deck are supported
by low concrete towers and connected to the girder
through vertical hangers. The light steel stress-ribbon
girder presented in section 1 is applied except for the
portion close to the abutments where the pre-stressed
concrete girder is used. As described in the
succeeding section, the structure without the concrete
girder i.e. the one with the full-steel girder was found to
be the most aerodynamically stable. Therefore, either
the full steel girder of Fig. 2(c) or the hybrid girder with
pre-stressed concrete edge beams, Fig. 2(d), is applied
to the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge.
In this alternative structure, the vertical hangers close to
the abutments are replaced by stay-cables and the tower
height is increased from 4.5 m to 10 m for a further
increase in the upper cable sag ratio, f/L, from 0.07 to
 Open Grating Hard Rubber Plate
Upper cable
1.9
BE =1.5
0.5
0.2
123
Concrete Stress-Ribbon Concrete Stress-Ribbon Cross Beam
Suspension Light Steel Stress-Ribbon Suspension Suspension Steel Pipe Lower cable
4.5
24.6 73.8 24.6 (b)
Precast Hanger
A Concrete Deck C B
0.2
8.61 (f/L=0.07) 4.10 (f/L=0.033) (Unit in m)
B=2.4
(a) (c)

Fig. 1 Earlier proposed stress-ribbon suspension bridge. Elevation, (a); cross-sections of full-steel girder, (b); and
pre-stressed concrete girder, (c).

Steel or PreStressed Concrete Edge Beam

123 2.0
25.5 72 25.5 Concrete Tower
BE =1.8
9.85

StayCable 12.3 (f/L=0.1)

2.46 (f/L=0.02) Upper Cable

0.16
Lower Cable Hanger
B =2.4
(a) (c)
Steel or PreStressed Concrete Edge Beam
123 2.0
25.5 72 25.5 Concrete Tower
BE =1.8
9.85

12.3 (f/L=0.1)
2.46 (f/L=0.02) Upper Cable

0.16
Lower Cable Hanger (Unit in m) 0.21
(b) (d)

Fig. 2 Elevation of stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge (a); corresponding stress-ribbon suspension bridge,
(b); full-steel girder, (c); and hybrid girder in material with pre-stressed concrete edge beams, (d).

0.1. The dimensions and main physical properties for
this structure are listed in Table 1. Also the properties
for Jinya Bridge, the steel stress-ribbon bridge and the
stress-ribbon suspension bridge are listed in the table.
The stress-ribbon suspension bridge in Fig. 1(a) is
in the following referred to as the ‘earlier proposed
hybrid’ bridge.
2.2 Preliminary design
It has been shown in the study of the ‘steel
stress-ribbon’ and ‘earlier proposed hybrid’ bridges that
one of the most important subjects in their design was
the control of the large deflections under live load.
Therefore, the effects of the cross-sectional area of the
upper, lower and stay cables, AU, AL and AS, on the
maximum deflection of the girder, ymax, were examined
at the early preliminary design stage of the
‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge. Fig.
3(a) and 3(b) show the results of ymax for the structure
with the ‘steel edge beams’ subjected to uniform live
load in the entire span and to asymmetrical live load
over half the span length, and Fig. 4(a) and (b) for the
structure with the ‘concrete edge beams’, respectively.
In these figures the abscissa denotes the
non-dimensional cross-sectional area of the cables,
AU/AOU, AL/AOL and AS/AOS, where AOJ (J=U, L, S) is the
optimum value applied to the proposal for each cable.
As expected ymax depends almost entirely on AU.
Based on these results, AU was determined in the
following manner:
1. AU is so determined as to keep ymax nearly below
the allowable value of 205 mm.
Regarding the determination of AL and AS, the following
manner was applied:
2. Both the upper and lower cables can be subjected
to uniform dead load, wU and wL. The ratio of
wU/wL is 7:3. The stay-cables are subjected to
that with the same value of wU.
3. AL was determined so that all the segments can be
suspended only by the lower cables during the
erection of the girder.
The optimum values of AU and AL for the bridge with
the steel and concrete edge beams are listed in Table 1.
 60 60
w Upper Cable w Upper Cable
p Lower Cable p Lower Cable
Stay Cable Steel Edge Beam Stay Cable
ymax (cm )

ymax (cm )
40 Steel Edge Beam 40

20 20

0 0
0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8
AU/ AOU，AL / AOS ，AS /AOL (a) AU/ AOU，AL / AOS ，AS /AOL (b)
Fig. 3 Maximum deflection for stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge with ‘steel edge beams’ subjected to
uniform live load in the entire span, (a); and that subjected to asymmetrical live load over half the span
length, (b).

60 60
w Upper Cable w Upper Cable
p p
Lower Cable Lower Cable
Concrete Edge Beam Stay Cable Concrete Edge Beam Stay Cable
ymax (cm )

ymax (cm )

40 40

20 20

0 0
0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8
AU/ AOU，AL / AOS ，AS /AOL (a) AU/ AOU，AL / AOS ，AS /AOL (b)

Fig. 4 Maximum deflection for stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge with ‘concrete edge beams’ subjected to
uniform live load in the entire span, (a); and that subjected to asymmetrical live load over half the span
length, (b).

A pair of central clamps is installed at the 3. Static characteristics

mid-span so as to decrease Ymax under asymmetrical live
load over half the span length. The vertical distance
between the upper cable and the edge beam, d, is taken
to be zero and the cable is connected to the beam rigidly.
The steel or pre-stressed concrete edge beams are
connected to the abutments rigidly so as to play the
same role in suspending live load as pure stress-ribbon
bridges.
The corresponding ‘stress-ribbon suspension’
bridge, Fig. 2(b), which has the same dimensions and
physical properties as the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed
suspension’ bridge, was also examined in this study.
It was found in the analysis that Hw for the
‘cable-stayed suspension’ structure with steel and
concrete edge beams can be reduced to about
one-eleventh and one-seventh of the Jinya Bridge (see
Table 1) and that Hw for the ‘suspension’ structure with
steel and concrete edge beams to about one-fourteenth
and one-eighth of the Jinya, respectively.
3.1. ‘Cable-stayed suspension’ and ‘suspension’
stress-ribbon bridges with steel edge beams
Fig. 5 shows the deflection of the ‘full-steel
stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge together
with the ‘full-steel stress-ribbon suspension’ structure
subjected to uniform live load in the entire span (a), and
to asymmetrical live load over half the span length (b).
It should be noted that the girder suspended by
stay-cables, or, the ‘cable-stayed girder’ hardly deflect
and therefore, that the ends of the ‘suspension girder’
seem to be fixed to the ‘cable-stayed girder’ at the
connections between these two different suspension
systems.
Fig. 6(a) and 6(b) respectively show the bending
moment and the normal force diagrams for the
‘cable-stayed suspension’ structure, and Fig. 7(a) and
7(b) those for the ‘suspension’ structure under full and
asymmetric loads. The similar characteristics can be
seen between the diagrams for the ‘suspension girder’
of the cable-stayed suspension structure and those for
 Table 1 Dimensions and main physical properties for four types of bridge.
Concrete Steel Stress- Stress-Ribbon Suspension Stress-Ribbon Cable-Stayed Suspension &
Structural Type
Stress-Ribbon Ribbon Proposed Earlier ( Stress-Ribbon Suspension )
L (m ) 123 123 123 123
0.07 (Upper) 0.1 (Upper)
f/L 0.0333 0.0333
0.0333 (Lower) 0.02 (lower)
2.77 (Steel) Steel edge beams Concrete edge beams
w (kN/m ) 23.1 2.45
9.88 (Concrete) 1.53 2.61
p (kN/m ) 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.76
B (m ) 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
B E (m ) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8
Girder

2 114 (Steel)
A (cm ) 7296 79 50 602
3706 (Concrete)
4) 4380 (Steel)
I (cm 390000 4386 1600 16100
768000 (Concrete)
1025 (Upper) 360 (Upper) 414 (Upper)
H W (kN ) 10700 1131 1465 995 1475
440 (Lower) 635 (Lower) 1061 (Lower)
Cable

2 106.4 106.4 19.42 (Upper) 26.4 (Upper) 19.4 (Upper)

A C (cm )
(Inner) (Inner) 13.82 (Lower) 27.6 (Lower) 41.6 (Lower)
2
E C (kN/cm ) 19600 19600 19600 13700

Ymax =16.5 cm
Ymax =15.9 cm

Ymax =16.7 cm
Ymax =19.9 cm

Fig. 5 Comparison between deflection for full-steel ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ bridge and for full-steel
‘stress-ribbon suspension’ bridge subjected to uniform live load in entire span, (a); and that subjected to
asymmetrical live load over half span length, (b).

the ‘whole girder’ of the suspension structure. In the
stress analysis, it was found that the maximum
combined stress in the edge beam due to bending
moment and normal force is far below the allowable
stress, σa, of 14 kN/cm2.
As mentioned above, the central clamp is installed
at the mid-span keeping the cable-to-girder distance, d,
to be zero. The central clamp and d effects on the
static characteristics under asymmetrical live load were
also examined in the analysis where d was taken to be 0
or 40 cm. It was found that Ymax for the ‘suspension’
structure with d = 40 cm without the central clamp
decreases to 1/2.3 in the case where d = 0 with the
clamp and that Ymax for the ‘cable-stayed suspension’
structure with d = 40 cm without the clamp decreases to
1/1.6 in the case where d = 0 with the clamp. Fig. 8(a)
and 8(b) respectively show the bending moment
diagrams for the ‘cable-stayed suspension’ and
‘suspension’ structures with d = 40 cm with and without
the central clamp. The central clamp induces very
large bending moment in the girder at the mid-span.
The rotation of the clamp due to the horizontal
movement of the cable towards the loaded span causes
such locally large bending moment [6].
Fig. 9 summarizes the effects of the central clamp
and d on ymax and Mmax for the ‘cable-stayed suspension’
and ‘suspension’ structures. In the figure the black
circle denotes the proposed design. It can be seen that
the clamp with d = 0 cm is quite effective for a decrease
in both ymax and Mmax and that the clamp with d = 40 cm
is not necessarily effective for a decrease in Mmax.
3.2. Comparison between characteristics for two
types of bridges with concrete edge beams and those
with steel beams
The characteristics for two types of structure with
 Cable- Cable- Cable- Cable-
Stayed Suspension Stayed Stayed Suspension Stayed

w w w w
20 p p p p
-160
Steel Edge Beam Steel Edge Beam
M (k N ･m )

10

N (k N )
-60
0

-10 40
(m) (m)
0 25 49 74 98 123 0 25 49 74 98 123
(a) (b)

Fig. 6 Bending moment diagram, (a), and normal force diagram, (b), for stress-ribbon ‘cable-stayed suspension’
bridge with steel edge beams under full and asymmetric loads.

Suspension Suspension
-210
20 w w
p p
M (k N ･m )

10 Steel Edge Beam

N (k N )

-110 w
p
0 w
p
-10 Steel Edge Beam
-10
(m) (m)
0 25 49 74 98 123 0 25 49 74 98 123
(a) (b)

Fig. 7 Bending moment diagram, (a), and normal force diagram, (b), for stress-ribbon ‘suspension’ bridge with steel
edge beams under full and asymmetric loads.

Cable- Cable-
Stayed Suspension Stayed Suspension
50 50
Cable-to-girder with central clamp Cable-to-girder with central clamp
30 distance d=40cm without central clamp 30 distance d=40cm without central clamp
Steel Edge Beam Steel Edge Beam
M (k N ･m )
M (k N ･m )

10 10

-10 -10

-30 -30
(m) (m)
-50 -50
0 25 49 74 98 123 0 25 49 74 98 123
(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Bending moment diagrams for stress-ribbon ‘cable-stayed suspension’ bridge, (a), and those for stress-ribbon
‘suspension’ bridge, (b), with cable-to-girder distance, d, of 40 cm with and without central clamp (steel
edge beams).
the ‘concrete edge beams’ were also examined in the pre-stressing force for the ‘cable-stayed suspension’
same manner presented in section 3.1. The results are bridge is below σa. While the maximum combined
summarized in Fig. 10. Significant differences stress for the ‘suspension’ bridge, which is induced at
between Fig. 10 and Fig. 9 cannot be seen. It was the fixed end at the abutment, is above σa, and therefore,
found that the maximum combined stress in the edge a partial increase in the cross-sectional area of the beam
beam due to bending moment, normal force and is necessary.
 Central Clamp Central Clamp
d w d w
p p
Cable Stayed 40cm Cable Stayed 40cm
Suspension
0cm Steel Edge Beam Suspension 0cm
Steel Edge Beam

40cm 40cm
Suspension Suspension
0cm 0cm

15 25 35 45 (cm) 5 15 25 35 (kN･m)
ymax Mmax
(a) (b)

Fig. 9 Effects of central clamp and cable-to-girder distance on maximum deflection, (a), and maximum bending
moment, (b), for two kinds of bridge with ‘steel edge beams’.

Central Clamp Central Clamp

d w d w
p p
Cable Stayed 40cm Cable Stayed 40cm
Suspension Concrete Edge Beam Suspension Concrete Edge Beam
0cm 0cm

40cm 40cm
Suspension Suspension
0cm 0cm

15 25 35 45 (cm) 5 15 25 35 (kN･m)
ymax Mmax
(a) (b)

Fig. 10 Effects of central clamp and cable-to-girder distance on maximum deflection, (a), and on maximum bending
moment, (b), for two kinds of bridge with ‘concrete edge beams’

-0.4 -0.4
α= +3° α= -3° ， 0°， +3°
-0.2 fT f B = 1.40 -0.2
fT fB = 1.19
δ
δ

0 0

0.2 0.2

0.4 0.4
0 5 10 15Vr 0 5 10 15 20 25V
r
0 10 20 30 40 50 VFS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 VFS
(m/s) (m/s)

Fig. 11 Flutter characteristics of earlier proposed Fig. 13 Flutter characteristics of stress-ribbon

stress-ribbon suspension bridge. cable-stayed suspension bridge.

The equivalent mass and the equivalent mass moment

4. Aerodynamic Characteristics and Static Loads
4.1 Flutter characteristics of earlier proposed
stress-ribbon suspension bridge
Fig. 11 shows the sample results of the wind tunnel
model test for the ‘earlier proposed stress-ribbon
suspension’ bridge. The cross-sectional shapes of 2D
models examined are the concrete girder and the
open-grating steel girder with and without a rubber
plate, Fig. 1(b) and 1(c). It was assumed that the
symmetric 1st mode in torsion and the symmetric 2nd
mode in vertical bending shown in Fig. 12 are coupled.
of inertia of the whole structure, the structural damping
of δ = 0.02 as well as the frequency ratio of torsion to
vertical bending, fT/fB , of 1.44 were simulated in the test.
It was found that no flutter occurs for the steel deck
without a rubber plate at the wind angles of attack, α, of
-3, 0 and +3 deg. While, coupled bending-torsion
flutter occurs at the reduced critical flutter speed, VFr =
VF /(fT B), of about 7 at these wind angles where B is the
girder width. This reduced value corresponds to about
25 m/s for the full-scale bridge, far below the design
speed. Therefore, the structure in Fig. 1(a) is the most
 Vertical Bending Tortion

Asym. 1st Sym. 1st Asym. 2nd Sym. 2nd Jinya Sym. 2nd Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
f =0.500 Hz f =0.722 Hz f =1.14 Hz f =1.13 Hz f =1.15 Hz f =1.63 Hz f =2.51 Hz

Fig. 12 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for earlier developed stress-ribbon suspension bridge.

Vertical Bending Tortion

Sym. 1st Asym. 1st Sym. 2nd Asym. 2nd Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
f = 0.73 f = 0.91 f = 1.28 f = 1.69 f = 1.12 f = 1.68 (a)

Vertical Bending Tortion

Sym. 1st Asym. 1st Sym. 2nd Asym. 2nd Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
f = 0.71 f = 0.90 f = 1.26 f = 1.64 f = 1.06 f = 1.61 (b)

Fig. 14 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension bridge with
‘steel edge girder’, (a), and those with ‘concrete edge girder’, (b).

Vertical Bending Tortion

Sym. 1st Asym. 1st Sym. 2nd Asym. 2nd Sym. 1st Asym. 1st
f = 0.71 f = 079 f = 1.03 f = 1.04 f = 1.10 f = 1.31

Fig. 15 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for stress-ribbon suspension bridge with concrete edge
girder.

aerodynamically stable only in the case where the
‘partial concrete’ girder is not used. The flutter
characteristics of this ‘improved full-steel’ structure are
discussed below.
4.2 Flutter characteristics of improved hybrid
bridges
Fig. 13 shows the 2D wind tunnel model test
results for the ‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’
bridge with the concrete edge beams. It was assumed
that the symmetric 1st mode in torsion and the
symmetric 1st mode in vertical bending shown in Fig.
14(b) are coupled. It is seen in Fig. 13 that VFr for this
bridge is high enough: above 20 that corresponds to
above 50 m/s for the full-scale bridge.
Although the flutter characteristics of the
‘stress-ribbon suspension’ bridge in Fig. 2(b) have not
yet been examined, it is expected that almost the same
results in Fig. 13 may be obtained. Because there are
no significant differences between the natural vibration
characteristics in the coupled modes for the vehicle bridges was also discussed and there is
‘suspension’ structure shown in Fig. 15 and those for feasibility that the proposal could be applicable to
the ‘cable-stayed suspension’ structure in Fig. 14. vehicle bridges.

4.3 Static wind loads References

Static wind resistant design of the hybrid bridge is
much less important. Because the open grating steel
deck plate provides much smaller CL and CM than the
conventional concrete stress-ribbon bridge girder with a
semi-rectangular cross-section. Also CD for the
circular or semi-circular edge beam of steel or concrete
is much smaller as super-critical Re (Reynolds number)
flow is formed on the beam in the full-scale bridge.
5. Application of Hybrid structures to Roadway
Bridges
Application of the proposal to roadway bridges,
that is the final goal of this study, is discussed in this
section. As suggested in a previous paper [4], there
are no significant differences between both the reduced
mass and the reduced mass moment of inertia of steel
suspension bridges for vehicle use and those for
pedestrian use. This fact suggests that the vehicle
bridge may be obtained by enlarging the pedestrian
bridge in Fig. 2, for example, four times. The
structural damping for these two can be assumed to be
same. Therefore, if the vehicle bridge has nearly the
same frequency ratio, Fig. 13 may be applicable to the
vehicle bridge. The difference of Re effects on the
response for these two is not significant as both are
exposed to the flow in the range of super critical Re.
If both have nearly the same Frude number, then VF for
the vehicle bridge is about twice of the pedestrian
bridge. Based on this consideration, there is feasibility
that the proposal could be applicable to vehicle bridges.
1. Yoshimura, T. et al., Half-circular and half-elliptic
edge modifications for increasing aerodynamic
stability of stress-ribbon pedestrian bridges, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol. 69-71 (1997)
861-870.
2. Mizuta, Y. et al., Proposal of a steel stress-ribbon
pedestrian bridge and its mechanical
characteristics, J. Structural Eng., JSCE, Vol. 43A
(1997) 1191-1196.
3. Yoshimura, T. et al., Steel and hybrid stress-ribbon
pedestrian bridges, Proc. IABSE Symp. Kobe
Japan, Vol. 79 (1998) 329-334.
4. Yoshimura, T. et al., Proposal of a hybrid stress-
ribbon pedestrian bridge for its application to
roadway bridges, Proc. FIB Symp., Prague Czech
Republic, Vol. 2 (1999) 697-703.
5. Yoshimura, T. et al, Aerodynamic stability of
proposed hybrid stress-ribbon bridges, Proc. 1st
Int. Symp. Wind and structures, Cheju Korea,
(2000) 153-162.
6. Gimsing, N.J., Cable supported bridges, 2nd
edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
【 付記 】
著者の一人は，下記のとおり共著者の指導のもと
で国外研修を行った．本文はその報告であり，受入
先のデンマーク工科大学にも提出できるよう英文
で取りまとめた．最後に，今回の研修を行うにあた
り，本学の関係者諸氏に大変お世話になったことを
記し，厚くお礼申し上げる次第である．

6. Concluding Remarks 記
A preliminary design was made for the proposed 1. 指導教授: Prof. Niels J. Gimsing
‘stress-ribbon cable-stayed suspension’ and the 1. 研 修 先 : Dept. of Structures and Materials,
‘stressribbon suspension’ bridges for pedestrian use. Technical Univ. of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
The girder has either steel or pre-stressed concrete edge 1. 研修期間: 2000 年 7 月 14 日~9 月 16 日
beam. Numerical analyses and wind tunnel 2D model
studies were conducted, and it was found that the
horizontal component of tensile force in the cables can
be reduced up to one-fourteenth of the conventional
concrete stress-ribbon bridge, that the maximum
deflection of the girder is controlled nearly below the
allowable value, that the stresses in the cables and the
edge beams are below the allowable value and that the
critical flutter speed is expected to high enough. The
application of the proposals for hybrid structures to