PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES WITH CFRP STAY CABLES: A REVIEW

This review establishes that CFRP and steel–CFRP hybrid stay systems are promising for performance-based seismic design of cable-stayed bridges, where long spans, aggressive exposure, and high traffic-disruption costs govern material selection. CFRP density is one-fifth that of steel, while tensile strengths exceed 2.0 GPa, allowing reductions in cable self-weight and sag. Full-scale qualification has reached the 10 MN class, with a measured capacity of 10,805 kN against a theoretical value of 10,710 kN, while fatigue studies reported only 8% stiffness loss after 1.2 million cycles at a 500 MPa stress range. At bridge level, hybrid cable layouts reduced vertical displacement by 12%, and a 1500 m bridge study reported buffeting reductions of 12%, 14%, and 28% in vertical, torsional, and lateral directions, respectively. A super-long-span CFRP–UHPC concept achieved 34.6% lower structural weight and a 30.9% higher global stability factor, although initial cost increased by 35.7%; however, projected 100-year cost was 21.3% lower. Seismic studies showed that PGV outperformed PGA as an intensity measure, whereas root-mean-square velocity was more effective for fault-crossing cases. Softer support conditions increased response by about 1.35 times, and stronger site contrasts produced increases up to 1.75 times. Despite these advantages, brittle failure, anchorage sensitivity, limited full-scale earthquake validation, and incomplete multi-hazard modelling remain major barriers. Future adoption should rely on probabilistic cable–anchor limit states, multi-support nonlinear analysis, monitoring-based digital twins, system fragility, and reliability-based life-cycle optimisation.

[1] A. Shama and M. Jones, “Seismic performance-based design of cable-supported bridges: State of practice in the United States,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 25, no. 12, Art. no. 04020101, 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001639. [2] M. H. Jones, S. Treyger, P. W. Pence, and A. Shama, “The Gerald Desmond cable-stayed bridge—A case study in performance-based seismic design,” in Structures Congress 2013: Bridging Your Passion with Your Profession, pp. 781–792, 2013, doi: 10.1061/9780784412848.069. [3] U. Meier, “Carbon fiber reinforced polymer cables: Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 37, pp. 399–411, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s13369-012-0185-6. [4] Y. Yang, M. F. M. Fahmy, S. Guan, Z. Pan, Y. Zhan, and T. Zhao, “Properties and applications of FRP cable on long-span cable-supported bridges: A review,” Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 190, Art. no. 107934, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107934. [5] X. Xie, X. Li, and Y. Shen, “Static and dynamic characteristics of a long-span cable-stayed bridge with CFRP cables,” Materials, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 4854–4877, 2014, doi: 10.3390/ma7064854. [6] Y. Yang, X. Wang, and Z. Wu, “Long-span cable-stayed bridge with hybrid arrangement of FRP cables,” Composite Structures, vol. 237, Art. no. 111966, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111966. [7] C. Lu, X. Wang, Y. Ning, K. Wen, and Q. Wang, “Numerical investigation on the structural behavior of a short-span cable-stayed bridge with steel and CFRP hybrid cables,” Materials, vol. 17, no. 9, Art. no. 2032, 2024, doi: 10.3390/ma17092032. [8] Y. Nie, Z. Zhang, and J. Zeng, “Wind-resistant performances comparison between a long-span CFRP and a steel cable-stayed bridge,” Advances in Bridge Engineering, vol. 6, Art. no. 32, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s43251-025-00177-1. [9] J. Jaiswal, P. K. Mehta, and G. Ghosh, “Effect of cable stiffness on the responses of a cable stayed bridge,” Procedia Structural Integrity, vol. 70, pp. 596–603, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.prostr.2025.07.095. [10] Y. Pang, X. Wu, G. Shen, and W. Yuan, “Seismic fragility analysis of cable-stayed bridges considering different sources of uncertainties,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 19, no. 4, Art. no. 04013015, 2014, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000565.