Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

Calibration of initial cable forces in cable-stayed bridge based on

Kriging approach
J. Zhang a,b, F.T.K. Au a,n
a
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui Province, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although optimization methods are useful in the preliminary design of cable-stayed bridges for sizing of
Received 16 April 2014 components and getting optimal bridge configurations, further fine-tuning is invariably conducted in the
Received in revised form detailed design thus affecting various sensitive properties such as the deck profile and cable forces. The
21 July 2014
zero-displacement method that adjusts the initial cable lengths repeatedly to achieve the design deck
Accepted 12 August 2014
profile is both computationally intensive and prone to convergence difficulty. Therefore a calibration
Available online 15 September 2014
method is proposed based on a Kriging surrogate model built using the uniform design approach. Apart
Keywords: from establishing the relationship between the bridge deck geometry and the initial cable forces by
Baseline model statistical method, the Kriging model also obviates the need for a large number of repeated finite
Cable-stayed bridges
element analyses. A simple cable-stayed bridge is used to verify the feasibility and accuracy of the
Initial cable force adjustment
proposed method. In real-life cable-stayed bridges with many cables, a staged calibration is implemen-
Kriging model
Surrogate model ted so that the Kriging model is used to identify reasonable initial forces in the critical stay cables so that
the zero-displacement method or similar can be used for further adjustments. Verification shows that
this staged calibration can address not only the deck level tolerance but also the control of cable forces.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction between theoretical predictions and field measurements are

Cable-stayed bridges have become more and more popular over
the past 50 years because of their desirable structural and aesthetic
characteristics. With the continual development in design methodol-
ogy and construction technology, cable-stayed bridges have opened up
a new era of long-span structures with spans over 1000 m, in which
suspension bridges have been predominant until recently. Since the
1990s, a few notable long-span cable-stayed bridges have also been
built in Hong Kong, including the Kap Shui Mun Bridge, Ting Kau
Bridge and Stonecutters Bridge, to meet various transportation needs.
The finite element method is extensively employed to analyse
the behaviour of sophisticated structures under dynamic excita-
tions such as earthquake, wind and vehicular loading [1,2].
However, in the development of finite element models, various
simplifying assumptions are normally made because of the com-
plexity of the actual structures. In the determination of the
dynamic and static responses, it is inevitable to have discrepancies
between the predictions by the structural model and their corre-
sponding measured values. Therefore the initial finite element
model needs to be properly calibrated so that the discrepancies
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 852 2859 2650.
E-mail address: francis.au@hku.hk (F.T.K. Au).
brought within certain acceptable tolerances for monitoring and
condition assessment purposes. A cable-stayed bridge typically
comprises the deck, the towers and the cables. As the cables are
effectively the only structural components that allow site control,
it is essential to study the distribution of cable forces and their
effects on the subsequent bridge behaviour. In view of this, the
development of a finite element model by suitably adjusting the
initial cable forces is an important milestone to provide a reference
for more accurate analyses afterwards. Although adjustments of
cable forces affect the geometry of not only the deck but also the
towers, the vertical profile of the deck in particular is often
accorded more importance in the calibration process while the
geometry of the towers is often controlled by the horizontal
displacements at the top. In the calibration process, the number
of control points is meticulously chosen to avoid having an over-
constrained optimization problem that brings along not only
tedious computations but also lack of solution in many cases.
Deck profile calibration can be carried out iteratively by
systematically updating a set of initial cable forces in each cycle
until certain criteria are satisfied by the final set of cable forces.
Based on the criteria or approach employed, the method of deck
profile calibration can be categorized into several groups. In the
extensively used zero-displacement method [3], satisfactory deck
profile under permanent loading is obtained by adjusting the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2014.08.007
0168-874X/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92
initial cable forces to give zero-displacements especially at the
cable anchorages. In the optimization method [4,5], the initial
cable forces are adjusted based on certain objective functions from
the perspective of efficiency or economy such as optimizing
shapes of post-tensioning functions using the B-spline curves [6],
maximum stresses in constraints and minimum stresses in stays
[7], and optimizing the cable sections based on the load combina-
tions [8]. The force equilibrium method [9] can easily account for
the effect of prestressing and the additional bending moments due
to the vertical profile of bridge deck, and therefore it can also
address concerns of the long-term time-dependent behaviour. The
unit force method [10] takes into account all relevant effects in the
design of cable-stayed bridges, including construction sequence,
second-order behaviour, large displacements, sag effect as well as
time-dependent factors.
Although various optimization methods are most useful in the
preliminary design stage for sizing of components and getting an
optimal bridge configuration, further fine-tuning is invariably
carried out during the detailed design stage to make it practical
for actual erection. For example, steel plates are manufactured to
have certain standard thicknesses, stay cables consist of a number
of strands of standard sizes, reinforcing bars have certain standard
sizes, and the variations of deck section is often in steps rather
than being continuous. The stiffness and mass will be slightly
varied. While the final design after adjustments is still reasonably
close to the optimum, various sensitive properties such as the deck
profile and cable forces are often affected, thus requiring further
calibration. Therefore, whether or not the design of a cable-stayed
bridge has gone through the optimization process, subsequent
calibration is indispensable for accurate structural analysis of
service behaviour and long-term monitoring.
In view of the complexity of real-life cable-stayed bridges, cable
force calibration is often achieved by iteration using various commer-
cial finite element packages with programming facilities [11] that
allow optimization to be carried out under various constraints
considered appropriate. After specifying a set of initial cable forces
by approximate equilibrium conditions or certain assumed initial cable
strains or stresses, structural analysis is conducted. The redistributed
cable forces under permanent loading are extracted and the criteria for
iteration are checked. If the deviations are considered unacceptable,
the cable strains are modified, and then the optimization process is
repeated until the specified tolerance is satisfied. Continuing in this
manner, it is theoretically possible to arrive at a set of admissible cable
forces eventually. However modern cable-stayed bridges tend to have
many closely spaced small-size cables to facilitate erection rather than
just a few large-size cables. As these cable-stayed bridges are
invariably structures with high degrees of statical indeterminacy and
the interaction among cables is not easily predictable, the determina-
tion of suitable initial values of cable forces is often a critical step for
the subsequent optimization. Actually, an algorithm may fail to
converge if there are too many specified objective functions or if the
tolerances are made too stringent. Moreover, finite element analysis is
carried out repeatedly in the iterative process, thereby substantially
increasing the amount of computation required and reducing its
efficiency. It is therefore desirable to develop an efficient and practical
method for the calibration process.
2. Use of surrogate models in sophisticated engineering
problems
In many fields of engineering, the surrogate model or meta-model
has been promoted as a promising method for finite element model
updating [12–16] and damage identification [17]. In essence, the
surrogate model examines various design variables and their
responses in order to identify the design variables that give the best
81
response. Using this, the original sophisticated finite element model
can be replaced by a simplified surrogate model constructed by
statistical approximation [16]. The surrogate model, which can be
constructed after determining the relationship between the variables
and the responses using design points [13], has the advantages of
high efficiency, easy implementation and adequate accuracy. In the
simplest surrogate model, the unknown function of interest is
approximated by a polynomial with the random errors assumed to
be normally distributed with zero mean, independent and identically
distributed. Many alternative surrogate models are available, includ-
ing the response surface method, Gaussian process meta-model,
Kriging model, etc.
To address the drawbacks of various available methods for deck
profile calibration, an efficient Kriging surrogate model is proposed to
calibrate the initial cable forces. Compared with the conventional
response surface method that requires an understanding of the
qualitative tendency of the entire design space, the Kriging model
[18] provides better flexibility of modelling response data with multi-
ple local extreme values. Having originated from geographical space
statistics, the Kriging algorithm is a data interpolation scheme to
predict unknown values from data at known locations and it is a
virtually unbiased minimum variance estimation model [19]. The local
estimation characteristics of the model can predict the function value
distribution satisfactorily by means of a correlation function. With the
development of the Kriging toolbox based on Matlab-DACE [20], the
Kriging model has been extensively applied in several computer
response models based on approximate simulation [21–24]. This is
particularly useful in the application to “computer experiments” such
that the sets of input and response are highly dimensional. For
example, in the practical application to the design of an aerospike
nozzle, only the constant “global” Kriging model has been shown to be
more accurate than the conventional response surface models [25]. As
the Kriging model is much better at prediction capability than many
other fitting methods and it can greatly reduce the computation time,
it is extensively applied in the reliability analysis [26].
The complicated relationship between the geometry of the
bridge deck and the initial cable forces of a cable-stayed bridge
can be obtained by establishing a Kriging model using statistical
methodology. Updating can be carried out with the established
Kriging model by minimizing the residuals between the displace-
ments of the deck at the control points and the objective values. For
those bridges with a large number of cables, the surrogate model
can be used efficiently together with the traditional method. In the
present study, a cable-stayed bridge with a moderate number of
cables is studied first. A reasonable number of design points are
identified using uniform design to ensure adequate accuracy of the
relationship between the cable forces and deck displacements. The
outputs at these design points calculated by the finite element
model are taken as the real responses of the bridge for this
numerical study. In practice, bridge loading tests can be carried
out to measure the displacements and other responses of interest.
The quality of the Kriging model constructed is mainly assessed
based on the accuracy of predictions. The uncertainties of the
identified initial cable forces due to modelling errors and measure-
ment noise can be quantified separately by the analysis of variance
[27,28] so that a full factorial design of experiments can be applied
to the corresponding factors. In addition, the method is also applied
to a long-span cable-stayed bridge in Hong Kong for verification of
its applicability to real cases.
3. Calibration of initial cable forces by Kriging surrogate
model
The construction of the Kriging model for calibration of initial
cable forces consists of several steps as elaborated below.
82 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92
3.1. Design of experiment for constructing a surrogate model
When “computer experiments” are used involving complicated
numerical models and multiple factors to establish an unknown
relationship between the response and inputs, the efficiency and
accuracy of the method depends critically on the design of the
experiment. Classical experimental designs are mostly based on
models of analysis of variance that typically involve the main
effects, interactions among factors and random errors [29]. An
important objective of an experimental design is to provide a good
estimate of all parameters in the resulting regression model with a
realistic number of experiments. Unfortunately, with an increasing
number of factors, both the number of parameters in the regres-
sion model and the required number of experiments increase
exponentially. Various methods of experimental design are avail-
able including the full factorial design, central composite design,
Latin hypercube sampling, etc. Among various experimental
designs that spread the design points, the method of uniform
design [29,30] is an efficient fractional factorial design, and hence
uniform design has often been adopted to seek a reasonable
number of design points that are uniformly scattered in the
domain in order to achieve the necessary accuracy. The method
of uniform design has been applied to various branches of science
and technology [21], including civil engineering [31].
3.2. Theory of Kriging model
The essence of Kriging model applied is briefly described here.
In a problem with s design sites, each design site is defined by n
coordinate components while each response has m components.
The design variable matrix X of dimensions s  n can be written in
terms of either the ith original n-dimensional column vector xi
containing components to define each design site or the jth
s-dimensional column vector xj of X as
X ¼ ½ x1 ⋯ xs T ¼ ½ x1 ⋯ xn 
Similarly the response matrix Y of dimensions s  m can be
written in terms of either the ith original m-dimensional column
vector yi containing response components at each design site or
the jth s-dimensional column vector yj of Y as
Y ¼ ½ y1 ⋯ y s T ¼ ½ y 1 ⋯ ym 
The relationship between the response matrix Y and the design
variable matrix X can be written as
Y ¼ FðXÞβ þZðXÞ
where the product of design matrix F(X) and coefficient matrix β
denotes the regression model that approximates the global trend
of the design space, and Z(X) is the system deviation considered as
a stochastic process that should be independent and identically
distributed, e.g. normally distributed. For the deterministic
response, polynomials of zero-order (constant), first-order (linear)
and second-order (quadratic) are provided for the regression
model in the adopted toolbox for Kriging model [20]. Once the
order is chosen, the lth response yl can be further expressed with k
known functions as
yl ¼ fðxÞT βl þ zl ðxÞ
where the k-dimensional column vector f(x) contains the regres-
sion functions, βl is the lth column of the coefficient matrix of
regression β of dimensions k  m, which can be estimated based
on the sampling points, zl(x) is the system deviation, and the limit
k depends on the order of regression model chosen and the
number of coordinate components n. For constant polynomials,
k is 1; for linear cases, k is (nþ 1); and for quadratic cases, k is
(n þ1)(n þ2)/2. The system deviation zl(x) is assumed to have zero
mean and variance σ 2l . The covariance between any two inter-
polation points xp and xq can be determined as
Covðzl ðxp Þ; zl ðxq ÞÞ ¼ σ 2l Rðθ; xp ; xq Þ ð5Þ
where Rðθ; xp ; xq Þ is the correlation function between x and xq, p
and θ is a parameter of the correlation function. The correlation
matrix R has the typical element Rpq given by
Rpq ¼ Rðθ; xp ; xq Þ ð6Þ
The adopted toolbox for Kriging model [20] provides 7 choices
of correlation model, namely exponential, general exponential,
Gaussian, linear, spherical, cubic and spline. For example, the
correlation function of the Gaussian correlation model is given in
terms of the coordinate components xpj and xqj of points xp and xq
respectively as
n
Rðθ; xp ; xq Þ ¼ ∏ expð  θj ðxpj  xqj Þ2 Þ ð7Þ
j¼1
For an arbitrary point xn and based on condition of the best
linear unbiased estimation, the predicted lth component y^ l of the
response vector y^ can be determined using the predictor model in
the toolbox as [20]
n n
y^ l ¼ ðfðxn ÞÞT βl þðrðxn ÞÞT R  1 ðyl  Fβl Þ ð8Þ
n
where βl is the lth column vector of the optimized coefficient
matrix of regression βn and r(xn) is the correlation function for the
Kriging predictor, which are given by
n
βl ¼ ðFT R  1 FÞ  1 ðFT R  1 yl Þ ð9Þ
rðxn Þ ¼ ½ Rðθ; x1 ; xn Þ; Rðθ; x2 ; xn Þ; …; Rðθ; xm ; xn Þ T ð10Þ
3.3. Procedure for calibration of initial cable forces
ð1Þ Based on the field measurements from loading tests of the
bridge, an objective function for optimization can be formulated in
terms of the residuals of the displacements at certain control
points between the field measurements and estimates from the
Kriging model, namely
( )
h
ð2Þ min fOðC 1 ; …; C g Þg ¼ min ∑ ðKM i ðC 1 ; …; C g Þ  DFM;i Þ2 ð11Þ
i¼1
where O is the objective function constructed from the initial cable
forces C1–Cg of the g cables, h is the number of control points
ð3Þ
chosen on the deck for calibration, KMi is the displacement at the
ith control point estimated from the Kriging model using the
initial cable forces C1–Cg, and DFM,i is the corresponding displace-
ment measured by loading test. The procedures of calibration of
initial cable forces by the Kriging model are explained below and
also compared with the traditional method in the form of
flowcharts in Fig. 1.
(a) The sampling points of the initial cable forces are generated
using the techniques of experiment design. With these input
sampling points, the corresponding selected displacements at
control points of the deck can be obtained from the finite
ð4Þ
element model using any self-developed or commercial
programme.
(b) The Kriging model is created with the initial cable forces and
the displacements at control points of the deck associated
with the sampling points of the model.
(c) A suitable optimization function is formulated to minimize the
residuals of displacements of the deck at the control points
between the field measurements and estimates from the
Kriging model.
 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92
Assume initial
cable forces
Optimization by finite
element package
Extract the redistributed
cable forces
Check if error
is acceptable
Yes
End
Fig. 1. Comparison between the traditional cable adjustment and the Kriging model: (a) traditional cable adjustment method and (b) Kriging model-based method.
(d) Updating procedure is processed in the established Kriging
model. With the calibrated initial cable forces, the finite
element model can be further used for further analysis of
the bridge.
4. Example 1: A simple cable-stayed bridge
The initial cable forces of the simple cable-stayed bridge [32,33]
shown in Fig. 2 are calibrated by a Kriging model. Table 1 shows
the structural parameters of the cable-stayed bridge. Each tower is
made up of four segments with different sectional properties. The
deck is monolithic with the tower at the intersection. In view of
the relatively short lengths, the sag effect of the cables is ignored.
The finite element model of the bridge is constructed using the
commercial package ANSYS Multiphysics 12.0 [34]. As the cable
forces are to be adjusted, the finite element model may comprise
just the deck and the towers, with the stay cables replaced by their
corresponding forces. Symmetry is assumed in this problem and
control points for calibration are taken as the cable anchorages at
deck level and the middle of the main span. For simplicity in
monitoring the subsequent results, the correct forces of Cables 1–6
are assumed to be [11 11 10 10 9 9]  103 kN respectively. The deck
is modelled by 84 beam elements while the towers are modelled
by 8 beam elements. Each cable is modelled by a single link
element. From finite element analysis, the corresponding vertical
displacements at the control points from Nodes 2–8 under
permanent loading can be obtained respectively as [ 0.034436
0.0094001  0.0091918  0.13097  0.22358  0.29343  0.33057]
m where upward displacement is taken as positive.
83
Experiment design:
Select initial samples
Finite element
calculation
Displacements at control points
Kriging modelling
No
Optimization analysis
Initial cable forces
4.1. Sensitivity analysis of initial cable forces
Sensitivity analysis of the initial cable forces is then carried out
based on a set of estimated initial cable forces. As long as the
estimated initial cable forces are reasonable, the sensitivity results
are not affected much. Each group of cable force is varied while
keeping all others unchanged for the evaluation of the associated
changes in displacement at the control points. With 10% increase
and decrease of each group of the initial cable forces, the varia-
tions of the displacements at the control points are calculated and
shown in Table 2. Fig. 3 shows that the deck profile is sensitive to
all cable forces and hence all of them should be considered in deck
profile calibration. As the sensitivity to the force in Cable 5 is the
highest, if its initial value is closer to the correct value, the results
will converge faster and be more accurate.
4.2. Traditional calibration method of cable forces
The traditional zero displacement calibration method by the
finite element method is first performed by an iterative optimiza-
tion procedure. To start with, the finite element model is built up
with the initial cable lengths as calculated geometrically from the
drawings and the permanent loading is then applied. The vertical
displacements at the deck cable anchorages are adopted as the
criteria for iteration. In each cycle, adjustments to the initial cable
strains are worked out based on the non-zero deck displacements
obtained from the previous cycle for further analysis until the deck
displacements at the cable anchorages come within the tolerance.
However, if the tolerance for iterations is set too strict, the cable
forces in many cases may stop at the limits of the allowable range
84 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92

Fig. 2. Example 1: A simple cable-stayed bridge.

Table 1
Example 1: Structural parameters of cable-stayed bridge.

Parameter Girder Tower Cable

Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 198,201.6 198,201.6 198,201.6

Moment of inertia (m4) 1.1307 0.2106 (top); 0.3452; 0.4315; 0.5179 (bottom) –
Sectional area (m2) 0.3193 0.2025 (top); 0.2276; 0.2694; 0.2973 (bottom) 0.0420 (exterior); 0.0162 (interior)
Dead load (kN/m) 87.5591 – 3.2251 (exterior); 1.2404 (interior)

Table 2
Example 1: Sensitivity analysis of the input of the initial cable forces.

Cable no. Change in cable Change in deck displacement (%)

force (%)
Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8

1 þ10 11.01 34.10 0.06  2.96  4.11  5.01 38.94

 10  11.01  34.10  0.06 2.97 4.12 5.01 53.54
2 þ10 5.95 21.54 0.06  2.25  3.55  4.91 38.94
 10  5.95  21.54  0.06 2.25 3.55 4.91 53.54
3 þ10  21.65  32.65 0.01  2.28  2.41  1.78 43.93
 10 21.65 32.64  0.01 2.28 2.41 1.78 48.55
4 þ10  9.74  24.48  0.02  2.60  3.77  2.14 43.79
 10 9.74 24.47 0.02 2.60 3.77 2.14 48.69
5 þ10  10.51  54.49  0.00  1.03  0.56  0.15 46.14
 10 10.51 54.48 0.00 1.04 0.56 0.15 46.34
6 þ10  5.19  20.26  0.01  3.13  1.20  0.25 46.09
 10 5.19 20.26 0.01 3.13 1.20 0.25 46.39

60%
Node 3
Node 8

40%
Change rate of the deck displacement

Node 2
20%

Node 5 Node 6 Node 7

Node 4
0

Cable 1 10%
Cable 1 10%
Cable 2 10%
-20% Cable 2 10%
Cable 3 10%
Cable 3 10%
Cable 4 10%
-40% Cable 4 10%
Cable 5 10%
Cable 5 10%
Cable 6 10%
Cable 6 10%
-60%
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0
Cable location on the deck (m)
Fig. 3. Example 1: Sensitivity of deck displacement to variation of initial cable forces.

and fail to converge. In addition, the method can only cater for construction, which cannot be predicted by the method. In the
control points at cable anchorages, but those elsewhere (e.g. Node present example, the starting values of initial cable forces are
8) have to be adjusted by proper preset of formwork during taken arbitrarily as [8 8 8 8 8 8]  103 kN. After 100 cycles of
 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92 85

Table 3
Example 1: Displacements at control points using the traditional zero displacement method.

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8

Objective value (m)  0.03444  0.00940  0.00919  0.13097  0.22358  0.29343  0.33057
Traditional method (m)  0.023092  0.011350  0.0092069  0.11946  0.18032  0.23777  0.27355
Discrepancy (%)  32.95 20.74 0.18  8.79  19.35  18.97  17.25

Table 4
Example 1: Cable forces using the traditional zero displacement method.

Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Cable 6

Objective value (103 kN) 11.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 9.00
Traditional method (103 kN) 11.3899 11.4797 11.2108 10.9181 8.3326 8.3404
Discrepancy (%) 3.54 4.36 12.11 9.18  7.42  7.33

Table 5 Table 6
Uniform design table of U n16 ð1612 Þ. Application table for U n16 ð1612 Þ.

Level Factor s Column number D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 1 8 0.0908
3 1 4 6 0.1262
1 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 4 1 4 5 6 0.1705
2 2 4 8 10 12 16 1 3 9 11 13 15 5 1 4 5 6 9 0.2070
3 3 6 12 15 1 7 10 13 5 8 11 14 6 1 3 5 8 10 11 0.2518
4 4 8 16 3 7 15 2 6 1 5 9 13 7 1 2 3 6 9 11 12 0.2769
5 5 10 3 8 13 6 11 16 14 2 7 12
6 6 12 7 13 2 14 3 9 10 16 5 11
7 7 14 11 1 8 5 12 2 6 13 3 10
8 8 16 15 6 14 13 4 12 2 10 1 9
9 9 1 2 11 3 4 13 5 15 7 16 8
10 10 3 6 16 9 12 5 15 11 4 14 7 Table 7
11 11 5 10 4 15 3 14 8 7 1 12 6 Example 1: Experimental design of Kriging surrogate model for the cable-stayed
12 12 7 14 9 4 11 6 1 3 15 10 5 bridge.
13 13 9 1 14 10 2 15 11 16 12 8 4
14 14 11 5 2 16 10 7 4 12 9 6 3 Index no. Cable forces (103 kN)
15 15 13 9 7 5 1 16 14 8 6 4 2
16 16 15 13 12 11 9 8 7 4 3 2 1 Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Cable 6

1 5.75 8.00 9.50 12.50 15.50 16.25

2 6.50 11.00 14.00 7.25 13.25 14.75
iteration with an allowable tolerance of 0.005 m, the displace-
3 7.25 14.00 5.75 14.75 11.00 13.25
ments at the control points are given in Table 3, with a maximum 4 8.00 17.00 10.25 9.50 8.75 11.75
discrepancy of displacement at Node 2 of above 32.95%. Although 5 8.75 7.25 14.75 17.00 6.50 10.25
the tolerance is set to be 0.005 m, the displacements at the control 6 9.50 10.25 6.50 11.75 17.00 8.75
7 10.25 13.25 11.00 6.50 14.75 7.25
points cannot converge satisfactorily. The corresponding initial
8 11.00 16.25 15.50 14.00 12.50 5.75
cable forces obtained together with the discrepancies with the 9 11.75 6.50 7.25 8.75 10.25 17.00
objective values are shown in Table 4 for subsequent comparison. 10 12.50 9.50 11.75 16.25 8.00 15.50
11 13.25 12.50 16.25 11.00 5.75 14.00
4.3. Kriging model method of calibration 12 14.00 15.50 8.00 5.75 16.25 12.50
13 14.75 5.75 12.50 13.25 14.00 11.00
14 15.50 8.75 17.00 8.00 11.75 9.50
During the experimental design for sampling points, a reason- 15 16.25 11.75 8.75 15.50 9.50 8.00
able range for all the cable forces C1–C6 of Cables 1–6 respectively 16 17.00 14.75 13.25 10.25 7.25 6.50
is chosen to be between 5  103 and 17  103 kN as
C 1 ; C 2 ; C 3 ; C 4 ; C 5 ; C 6 A ½5  103 ; 17  103  ð12Þ
Uniform design is chosen here because of the efficiency and the range of [5,17]  103 kN, Levels ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘16’, for example,
accuracy. The uniform design tables designated as Un(qs) or U nn ðqs Þ correspond to cable forces of 5.75  103 kN, 6.5  103 kN and
[30] are used, where U means uniform design, n is the number of 17  103 kN respectively. Therefore using Columns 1, 3, 5, 8, 10
trials, q denotes the number of levels for each factor, and s denotes and 11 of Table 5 and the above interpretation of levels, the cable
the number of columns in the table. The tables with an asterisk forces for the 16 cases are worked out as tabulated in Table 7.
have better uniformity and are therefore preferred. In this exam- Finite element analyses of the 16 cases are carried out and
ple, the uniform design table U n16 ð1612 Þ as shown in Table 5 and the displacement results at various control points are shown in
associated application table in Table 6 are used here. U n16 ð1612 Þ has Table 8. Some plots of the Kriging model constructed are shown
16 levels and can well cope with 6 factors for the 6 groups of cable in Fig. 4, which illustrate the complicated relationship and the
forces with a small deviation D of 0.2518. Table 6 shows that challenge of the problem. Assuming the same starting values of
Columns 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 of Table 5 should be used to form the initial cable forces of [8 8 8 8 8 8]  103 kN as before, iteration by
design for the 6 factors. As the 16 levels are evenly distributed in sequential quadratic programming can be carried out using the
86 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92

Table 8
Example 1: Vertical displacements at control points based on the cable forces in Table 7.

Index no. Vertical displacements at control points (m)

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8

1 0.09378 0.11873  0.00912  0.09863  0.28429  0.52929  0.60943

2 0.08639 0.08225  0.00916  0.10234  0.27536  0.42776  0.48187
3  0.02080 0.02887  0.00916  0.09553  0.17616  0.29405  0.34522
4  0.02819  0.00760  0.00921  0.09925  0.16724  0.19251  0.21765
5 0.09591 0.05113  0.00913  0.09138  0.14355  0.33706  0.41272
6  0.00486 0.05984  0.00917  0.13633  0.25731  0.38118  0.43201
7  0.01225 0.02337  0.00921  0.14005  0.24838  0.27964  0.30445
8 0.06198 0.03754  0.00923  0.05767 0.01087 0.01285  0.01432
9  0.03347 0.02000  0.00916  0.10786  0.29587  0.45914  0.51536
10 0.04076 0.03417  0.00917  0.02548  0.03662  0.16665  0.22523
11 0.03337  0.00231  0.00921  0.02920  0.02769  0.06512  0.09767
12  0.06740 0.00641  0.00925  0.07415  0.14145  0.10923  0.11696
13 0.05670 0.06514  0.00917  0.06628  0.11776  0.25378  0.31203
14 0.04932 0.02866  0.00922  0.07000  0.10884  0.15224  0.18447
15  0.05788  0.02472  0.00922  0.06319  0.00964  0.01853  0.04781
16  0.06527  0.06119  0.00927  0.06690  0.00071 0.08300 0.07975
Displacement of Node 8 (m)

Displacement of Node 8 (m)

3
10 × 103 ×
3
Ca ×10 Ca ×103
ble ble
for for
ces ) ces )
of C ble 1 (kN of C 3 (kN
ble
abl of Ca abl of Ca
e2 fo rces e4 fo rces
(kN
) Cable (kN
) Cable
Displacement of Node 8 (m)

103 ×
Ca
ble ×103
for
ces (kN)
of C ble 5
abl f Ca
e6
orc es o
(kN
) Ca ble f

Fig. 4. (a) Example 1: Displacement at Node 8 predicted by Kriging model from forces in Cables 1 and 2. (b) Example 1: Displacement at Node 8 predicted by Kriging model
from forces in Cables 3 and 4. (c) Example 1: Displacement at Node 8 predicted by Kriging model from forces in Cables 5 and 6.

Kriging model to calibrate the cable forces efficiently. The calcu- compared with the objective values in Fig. 5. With a finite element
lated displacements at the control points are shown in Table 9, model comprising 104 elements, the Kriging model takes 0.6 s for
while the corresponding initial cable forces are given in Table 10. calibration, while the traditional calibration method takes 32 s.
The displacements at the control points obtained by the Kriging Therefore the Kriging model performs better than the traditional
model and the traditional “zero displacement” method are calibration method not only in accuracy but also in efficiency.
 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92 87

Table 9
Example 1: Displacements at control points based on Kriging model.

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8

Objective values (m)  0.03444  0.00940  0.00919  0.13097  0.22358  0.29343  0.33057
Kriging model (m)  0.03377  0.01077  0.00919  0.13226  0.22248  0.29338  0.33105
Discrepancy (%)  1.95 14.57 0.00 0.98  0.49  0.02 0.15

Table 10
Example 1: Calibrated initial cable forces based on Kriging model.

Cable 1 Cable 2 Cable 3 Cable 4 Cable 5 Cable 6

3
Objective values (10 kN) 11.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 9.00
Kriging model (103 kN) 10.9590 10.9328 10.1017 10.2148 8.7213 8.7686
Discrepancy (%)  0.37  0.61 1.02 2.15  3.10  2.57

0.1
Table 11
Example 1: Uncertainties of key structural parameters.
0.05
Node 4 Parameter Description Coefficient of variation
Displacement of the control points (m)

Node 3 Et Modulus of elasticity of tower 1%, 3%

-0.05
Node 2 Ig Moment of inertia of girder 0.5%, 2%
Eg Modulus of elasticity of girder 1%, 3%
-0.1
wg Dead load of girder 1%, 3%
Node 5 Ag Cross sectional area of girder 0.5%, 2%
-0.15 Ec Modulus of elasticity of cable 1%, 3%
Ac Cross sectional area of cable 0.5%, 2%
-0.2
Node 6
-0.25
Objective values
Objective value Table 12
-0.3 Traditional zero-displacement method Node 7 Example 1: Statistics of identified initial cable forces due to uncertainties of key
Kriging model structural parameters.
Node 8
-0.35
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Cable Objective value Mean Standard deviation
Cable location on the deck (m) no. (103 kN) (103 kN) (103 kN)

Fig. 5. Example 1: Displacements at control points compared with objective values. 1 11 11.0722 0.2504
2 11 11.0360 0.2615
3 10 10.0961 0.4627
4.4. Evaluation of effects of uncertainties by Kriging model
4 10 10.2290 0.4193
5 9 8.6971 0.2498
The deck profile calibration process is affected by various 6 9 8.7614 0.2189
uncertainties, including errors of field measurements, uncertain-
ties of structural properties, construction errors, etc. and the
Kriging model provides a convenient tool for evaluating the effects provide stronger concrete. For each level of uncertainty, 20
of uncertainties. Systematic errors will definitely affect the relia- samples of random error are introduced. Hence there are totally
bility of calibration result, but this can only be addressed by 2560 calibration runs as described in Section 4.3. The statistics of
improving the measurement methods. In this study, the effects of the identified cable forces due to uncertainties of key structural
random errors on the identified results are further investigated in parameters are given in Table 12.
respect of the modelling errors and measurement errors [35]. The effects of field measurements of deck levels on deck profile
These random errors are assumed to be normally distributed and calibration are analysed. Two levels of uncertainty of deck level
independent of one another. measurement, namely 1% and 5% COV, are assumed for all deck
Only 7 key structural parameters have been chosen for demon- nodes without rigid support. Strictly speaking, all the deck nodes
stration as shown in Table 11 because they govern the amount of without rigid support are subject to independent random error
subsequent computations. For example, the modulus of elasticity and should be considered together. However it is observed that
of the tower is included as contractors often tend to provide interaction between cable forces and deck levels is stronger within
concrete of higher strength in view of the serious consequences either the left or right half, but interaction between the two halves
associated with substandard concrete. The adoption of slip- is less strong. To focus on the former effects and to keep the
forming helps to control the accuracy of the cross sectional problem for demonstration of reasonable size, symmetry is
dimensions and hence the uncertainties of the cross sectional area assumed for simplicity. Considering two levels of uncertainty of
and moment of inertia may be less significant. For each of the key deck level measurements D2–D8 at Nodes 2–8 respectively and 20
parameters, two levels of uncertainty expressed in terms of samples of random error for each level of uncertainty, there are a
coefficient of variation (COV) are considered. Then a full factorial total of 2560 identification runs for full factorial design of experi-
design of experiments is used involving 27 combinations of input ments. However the Kriging model can be used efficiently without
parameters. All parameters are assumed to be unbiased and hence, any need for further finite element analysis. The statistics of the
for example, the mean modulus of elasticity of the tower should be identified cable forces due to uncertainties of deck level measure-
estimated taking into account the tendency for the contractor to ments are given in Table 13.
88 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92

To evaluate the contribution from various factors to the their corresponding degrees of freedom. For the key structural
identified cable forces, one may adopt the F-test [36] that is often parameters and the deck level measurements, the F-statistics of
used in the analysis of variance for comparison with factors of the the mean and standard deviation of the chosen factors are
system deviation. The significance FA of factor A is distributed calculated. Fig. 6 shows that the uncertainty of dead load of girder
approximately as F (fA, fe) given by is the most significant among structural parameters, which is
reasonable as the cables are direct load-carrying components.
SA =f A Therefore uncertainties of the dead load, e.g. density of concrete,
FA ¼  Fðf A ; f e Þ ð13Þ
Se =f e accuracy of surface level of in situ concrete slab, etc., will
significantly affect the identification of cable forces. Similarly
where SA is the sum of squares of system deviation, Se is the sum of
Fig. 7 shows the significance of uncertainties in deck level
squares of deviation of experiment of factor A, and fA and fe are
measurements. Measurements at Nodes 7 and 8 are the most
significant for the exterior cables, i.e. Cables 1 and 2. For the
Table 13
Example 1: Statistics of identified initial cable forces due to uncertainties of deck
interior cables, measurements at Nodes 6 and 8 are the most
level measurements. significant. In comparison, measurements at Nodes 3 and 4 are the
least significant for the identification of cable forces. If instruments
Cable Objective value Mean Standard deviation for deck level measurement are limited, one may therefore allo-
no. (103 kN) (103 kN) (103 kN)
cate the more accurate ones to positions of higher significance.
1 11 11.0822 0.2983
2 11 10.9974 0.3021
3 10 9.8661 0.3815 5. Example 2: Ting Kau bridge in Hong Kong
4 10 10.1302 0.3945
5 9 8.5501 0.2668
6 9 8.6482 0.2464
Ting Kau Bridge is a cable-stayed bridge in Hong Kong with a
total length of 1177 m completed in 1998. The four longitudinal

12000 25000
Cable 1 Cable 2
10000 20000

8000
15000
F 6000 Mean F Mean
STD 10000 STD
4000

5000
2000

0 0
Et Ig Eg wg Ag Ec Ac Et Ig Eg wg Ag Ec Ac

3000 4500
Cable 3 4000 Cable 4
2500
3500
2000 3000
2500
F 1500 Mean F Mean
2000
STD STD
1000 1500
1000
500
500
0 0
Et Ig Eg wg Ag Ec Ac Et Ig Eg wg Ag Ec Ac

1000 1600
900 Cable 5 1400 Cable 6
800
1200
700
600 1000
F 500 Mean F 800 Mean
400 STD STD
600
300
400
200
100 200

0 0
Et Ig Eg wg Ag Ec Ac Et Ig Eg wg Ag Ec Ac

Fig. 6. Example 1: Significance of uncertainties of key structural parameters.

 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92 89

girders labelled as ‘1st’, ‘2nd’, ‘3rd’ and ‘4th’ are supported from as shown in Fig. 9 from A to D and E to I for those at the Ting Kau
four inclined cable planes emanated from three towers as shown End and Tsing Yi End respectively. The finite element model of
in Fig. 8. At each end of the girders, several back-stay cables are Ting Kau Bridge is constructed using the commercial package
closely spaced as a group to stabilize the towers. They are labelled ANSYS Multiphysics 12.0. The deck, towers and struts are modelled

2000 6000
1800 Cable 1
5000
Cable 2
1600
1400
4000
1200
F 1000 Mean F 3000 Mean
800 STD STD
2000
600
400 1000
200
0 0
D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8

500 1800
450 Cable 3 1600 Cable 4
400 1400
350
1200
300
1000
F 250 Mean F Mean
800
200 STD STD
600
150
100 400

50 200
0 0
D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8

350 800

300 Cable 5 700 Cable 6

600
250
500
200
F Mean F 400 Mean
150 STD STD
300
100
200
50 100

0 0
D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8

Fig. 7. Example 1: Significance of uncertainties of deck level measurements.

North East South

4th
3rd
2nd
1st
West

Ting Kau Tower Main Tower Tsing Yi Tower

127 m 448 m 475 m 127 m

towards Ting Kau towards Tsing Yi

Approach viaduct

Fig. 8. Example 2: Schematic plan and elevation of Ting Kau Bridge in Hong Kong.
90 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92

by beam elements while the stay cables are modelled by link give rise to unreasonable cable forces. In addition, the common
elements taking into account the sag effect, as shown in Fig. 10. expediency of modelling a group of closely spaced cables as an
The flexibility method is used first to obtain the initial values of equivalent cable also requires further calibration.
the cable forces [37]. It is a mathematical approach that involves The traditional zero displacement calibration method is first
developing and solving a system of equations that relate cable performed such that the vertical deviations from the design deck
forces and displacement of control points using the concept profile do not exceed 5 mm. However, even with 30 cycles of
of compatibility. However the sole criterion of compatibility may iteration, the vertical displacements at control points still cannot

End back-stay cables End back-stay cables

A B C D E F G H I J

Cable anchorage

Rocker bearing Rocker bearing

Ting Kau End Tsing Yi End

Fig. 9. Example 2: Configuration of end back-stay cables at ends of the bridge deck.

Fig. 10. Example 2: Finite element model of Ting Kau Bridge.

x 10-3 Traditional method x 10-3 Based on Kriging approach

8 2
Ting Kau End

Tsing Yi End
Ting Kau End

Tsing Yi End

1.5
Displacement of control point (m)

Displacement of control point (m)

6
1 Axis 1000

0.5
4
0

2 Axis 1000 -0.5

-1
0
-1.5

-2
-2
-2.5

-4 -3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Node number Node number
Fig. 11. Example 2: Displacement of 1st girder of Ting Kau Bridge after calibration: (a) based on traditional zero displacement method and (b) after further adjustment based
on Kriging model.
 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92
Based on Kriging approach
1000
900 Axis 1000
800
Cable stress (Mpa)
700
600
500
400
300
50 100 150 200 250
Cable no.
Fig. 12. Example 2: Stresses in cables supporting 1st girder of Ting Kau Bridge after
calibration.
meet the requirement. For example, Fig. 11(a) shows that the
displacement of the 1st girder under permanent load has a
maximum of around 8 mm, where the nodes are numbered
sequentially from the Ting Kau End. To comply with the allowable
tolerance of 5 mm, the cable forces can be further adjusted
manually but this will be extremely time-consuming.
Before conducting calibration using the Kriging model, it is
essential to determine the key factors for the experimental design.
With totally 384 cables supporting the bridge deck, it is imprac-
tical to consider all cable forces as key factors in view of the huge
amount of workload and difficulties associated with highly con-
strained optimization problems. It is important to choose the key
factors and obtain reasonable initial values for further iteration. As
the bridge is asymmetric, the end back-stay cables play an
important role in sharing the unbalanced cable forces and con-
trolling the displacements of side towers. In addition, if one
focuses only on minimizing the deviations of deck profile in the
calibration, the stresses of some of the end back-stay cables may
be unreasonably high. Considering the actual construction process
on site and the practicality of deck profile calibration, the cable
forces in each group of end back-stay cables for a longitudinal
girder are assumed to be the same. This results in 8 factors for the
experiment design. The cable stress should be above 0 MPa but not
exceeding 796.5 MPa, which is 0.45 times of guaranteed ultimate
tensile strength of 1770 MPa. Totally 30 levels of the 8 factors are
implemented with the finite element model and the displace-
ments at 42 control points are worked out for the experimental
design. The Kriging model is established accordingly. The control
displacements include the 40 vertical displacements at the deck
anchorages of the end back-stay cables (Fig. 9) on the 4 long-
itudinal girders, and the 2 longitudinal displacements at the top of
side towers. In solving this highly constrained optimization
problem, it may be helpful to adopt relaxed tolerances initially at
certain critical points and then tighten them gradually. Therefore
the initial tolerances at points E and J in Fig. 9 are set at 20 mm,
and the initial tolerances at points F and I are set at 10 mm;
elsewhere the tolerance is taken as 5 mm. Iteration by sequential
quadratic programming can be carried out using the Kriging model
to obtain a set of more reasonable forces in the end back-stay
cables that satisfy the relaxed set of tolerances. Then with these
updated forces in the end back-stay cables and the other cable
forces previously calculated by the flexibility method, the zero
displacement method by successive adjustments to the initial
cable lengths in each cycle is carried out until the final tolerance
of 5 mm is met. After this staged calibration process, the
91
displacement of the 1st girder under permanent load is shown
in Fig. 11(b) and the cable stresses under permanent loading as
shown in Fig. 12 are all acceptable. Therefore the Kriging model is
instrumental in providing a set of reasonable initial cable forces for
subsequent calibration so as to satisfy not only the deck level
tolerance but also the allowable cable stresses.
6. Conclusions
The traditional zero-displacement method to carry out deck
profile calibration of cable-stayed bridges suffers from conver-
gence problems, tedious computations and unpredictable cable
forces. A calibration method based on a Kriging surrogate model is
therefore proposed. The Kriging model can be built efficiently
using the uniform design approach with a prescribed number of
300 350
finite element analyses. As opposed to the traditional zero-
displacement method that requires time-consuming repetitions
of finite element analyses in iteration, the Kriging model provides
an effective interpolation technique for iteration without any
further finite element analyses. The Kriging model can be utilized
effectively in a staged calibration procedure to provide reasonable
estimates of critical cable forces such as those in closely spaced
group of cables. With the set of reasonable initial cable forces,
further calibration can be carried out by iteration to satisfy not
only the deck level tolerance but also the allowable cable stresses.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Highways Department
of the Hong Kong Government for assistance received in producing
this paper as well as permission of its publication. Any opinions
expressed or conclusions reached in the paper are entirely of the
authors.
References
[1] W.X. Ren, X.L. Peng, Baseline finite element modeling of a large span cable-
stayed bridge through field ambient vibration tests, Comput. Struct. 83 (8–9)
(2005) 536–550.
[2] S. Sritharana, Priestley M.J. Nigel, Seibleb Frieder, Nonlinear finite element
analyses of concrete bridge joint systems subjected to seismic actions, Finite
Elem. Anal. Des. 36 (3–4) (2000) 215–233.
[3] P.H. Wang, T.C. Tseng, C.G. Yang, Initial shape of cable-stayed bridges, Comput.
Struct. 46 (6) (1993) 1095–1106.
[4] J.H.O. Negrão, L.M.C. Simões, Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with three-
dimensional modelling, Comput. Struct. 64 (1–4) (1997) 741–758.
[5] F. Nieto, S. Hernández, J.Á. Jurado, Optimum design of long-span suspension
bridges considering aeroelastic and kinematic constraints, J. Struct. Multi-
discip. Optim. 39 (2) (2009) 133–151.
[6] M.M. Hassan, A.O. Nassef, A.A. El Damatty, Determination of optimum
posttensioning cable forces of cable-stayed bridges, Eng. Struct. 44 (2012)
248–259.
[7] L.M.C. Simões, J.H.J.O. Negrão, Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with box-
girder decks, Adv. Eng. Softw. 31 (6) (2000) 417–423.
[8] A. Baldomir, S. Hernandez, F. Nieto, J.A. Jurado, Cable optimization of a long
span cable stayed bridge in la Coruña (Spain), Adv. Eng. Softw. 41 (7–8) (2010)
931–938.
[9] D.W. Chen, F.T.K. Au, L.G. Tham, P.K.K. Lee, Determination of initial cable forces
in prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridges for given design deck profiles
using the force equilibrium method, Comput. Struct. 74 (1) (2000) 1–9.
[10] D. Janjic, M. Pircher, H. Pircher, Optimization of cable tensioning in cable-
stayed bridges, J. Bridge Eng. 8 (3) (2003) 131–137.
[11] M.X. Ye, Y.Q. Han, M. Zhang, Research on adjusting cable forces of cable-stayed
bridges based on ANSYS, J. China Railway Soc. 28 (4) (2006) 128–131 (in
Chinese).
[12] T. Marwala, Finite element model updating using response surface method.
Collection of technical papers-AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Struc-
tural Dynamics and Materials Conference, vol. 7, 2004, pp. 5165–5173.
[13] W.X. Ren, H.B. Chen, Finite element model updating in structural dynamics by
using response surface method, Eng. Struct. 32 (8) (2010) 2455–2465.
[14] L. Deng, C.S. Cai, Bridge model updating using response surface method and
genetic algorithm, J. Bridge Eng. ASCE 15 (5) (2010) 553–564.
92 J. Zhang, F.T.K. Au / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 92 (2014) 80–92
[15] W.X. Ren, S.E. Fang, M.Y. Deng, Response surface-based finite-element model
updating using structural static responses, J. Eng. Mech. 137 (4) (2011)
248–257.
[16] S. Chakraborty, A. Sen, Adaptive response surface based efficient finite
element model updating, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 80 (2014) 33–40.
[17] S.E. Fang, R. Perera, A response surface methodology-based damage identifica-
tion technique, Smart Mater. Struct. 18 (6) (2009) 065009.
[18] H.Y. Gao, X.L. Guo, X.F. Hu, Crack identification based on Kriging surrogate
model, Struct. Eng. Mech.: Int. J. 41 (1) (2012) 25–41.
[19] N.A.C. Cressie, Statistics for Spatial Data, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993.
[20] S.N. Lophaven, H.B. Nielsen, J. Sondergaard, DACE a Matlab Kriging toolbox
[EB/OL]. 〈http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/  hbn/dace/〉 (19.02.2005).
[21] W. Shyy, N. Papila, R. Vaidyanathan, K. Tucker, Global design optimization for
aerodynamics and rocket propulsion components, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37 (1)
(2001) 59–118.
[22] R. Roy, S. Hunduja, R. Teti, Recent advances in engineering design optimiza-
tion: challenges and future trends, CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 57 (2) (2008)
697–715.
[23] H.S. Rahman, K. Alireza, G. Reza, Application of artificial neural network,
Kriging, and Inverse Distance Weighting Models for estimation of scour depth
around bridge pier with bed sill, J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 3 (10) (2010) 944–964.
[24] P. McLean, P. Lger, R. Tinawi, Post-processing of finite element stress fields
using dual Kriging based methods for structural analysis of concrete dams,
Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42 (6) (2006) 532–546.
[25] T.W. Simpson, J.J. Korte, T.M. Mauery, F. Mistree, Kriging Models for Global
Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,
vol. 39(12), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 2233–
2241.
[26] J. Zhang, L.M. Zhang, W.H. Tang, Kriging numerical models for geotechnical
reliability analysis, Soils Found. 51 (6) (2011) 1169–1177.
[27] A. Saltelli, K. Chan, E.M. Scott, Sensitivity Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 2000.
[28] B. Moaveni, J.P. Conte, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of damage identi-
fication results obtained using finite element model updating, Comput.-Aided
Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 24 (5) (2009) 320–324.
[29] K.T. Fang, D.K.J. Lin, P. Winker, Y. Zhang, Uniform design: theory and
applications, Technometrics 42 (3) (2000) 237–248.
[30] K.T. Fang, Experimental design by uniform distribution, Acta Math. Appl. Sin. 3
(4) (1980) 363–372 (in Chinese).
[31] J.Y. Li, R. Li, Y. Gao, J. Huang, Aerodynamic optimization of wind turbine airfoils
using response surface techniques, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A: J. Power
Energy 224 (6) (2010) 827–838.
[32] P.H. Wang, T.Y. Tang, H.N. Zheng, Analysis of cable-stayed bridges during
construction by cantilever methods, Comput. Struct. 82 (4–5) (2004) 329–346.
[33] J. Cheng, Determination of cable forces in cable-stayed bridges constructed
under parametric uncertainty, Eng. Comput. 27 (3) (2010) 301–321.
[34] ANSYS, User's Manual, Revision 8.0, Swanson Analysis System, USA, 2003.
[35] W.J. Yan, W.X. Ren, T.L. Huang, Statistic structural damage detection based on
the closed-form of element modal strain energy sensitivity, Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 28 (2012) 183–194.
[36] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 3rd ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, New York, 2006.
[37] Zhang J., Au F.T.K. Establishment of baseline models for long-span cable-stayed
bridges, in: Proceedings of the Second International Postgraduate Conference
on Infrastructure and Environment, vol. 2, 2010, pp. 263–270.